this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2026
851 points (98.7% liked)

Comic Strips

21060 readers
2371 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Wren@lemmy.today 15 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

I told my partner at the time about this and he didn't believe me.

We got up early on our day off for a mission to the mall to find two things: Knee length women's shorts with pockets and women's pants with pockets that fit my phone. After five hours we found neither.

I bought slim fit men's pants, like I always do, and took in the waist. Oh, and hospital scrubs.

Ladies, I've turned my mother and several friends onto doctor pants — they're plain in every colour, full of pockets, stain resistant, dry quickly, have drawstring/elastic waists, and people ask you for medical advice at the pharmacy.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

These days, can you find them online? I can imagine that a local mall might not have much selection, but the Internets are huge.

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 5 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Women's sizes are nuts. That was the other thing we discovered — my ex was just straight up medium shirts, same pants size in every store. I had no idea men had somewhat standardized sizes. Women's sizes are basically astrology.

Plus, I have hella hips and a narrow waist, so depending on where the pants sit I either have a delicious muffin top or I'm swimming in them. Thus: Hospital pants.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, I really don't get the sizing thing. I've heard it's because if the manufacturer makes a bigger size but labels it a smaller size, some women will enthusiastically buy it because they're happy to be wearing a smaller (labelled) size. But, that sounds like BS to me.

I think maybe a difference is that men tend to rarely wear tight clothing, so even if the arms are a bit too long, or the chest is a bit too tight a medium still works. But, for women, because it's designed to have a body-hugging style, if it's too tight anywhere it's too small. Like, I can't imagine any men's shirt that would result in a muffin top. For a guy, that might mean you're off by two sizes, not just one.

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

No, it’s definitely a thing, and trends more in clothes geared to older women. When I shopped at Forever 21 back when I was in my 20s, I was a size 4-6; when I shopped at REI I was a size 4. When I shopped at Chicos, on the other hand, which caters almost exclusively to older women, I was a size 0. And sometimes even that was too big on me.

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 1 points 8 hours ago

I want to see some numbers confirming that's actually driving sales. I buy what fits regardless of the number in the waistband.

[–] psoul@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I know it’s counter intuitive but women are allowed to shop in the men’s section if what they want is boring functionality.

Same applies to men. My favorite jacket was found in the women’s section.

Though I understand that if you want pockets on a dress, like a cargo dress, that will have to be a DIY item.

[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 17 hours ago

I have a fancy purple dress I bought to wear to a function. Got so many compliments the night I wore it. Everytime, I'd respond by putting my hand in the large pockets, "thanks, it has pockets" with a big ole smile

They're out there, rare, but out there

[–] webkitten@piefed.social 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Good news; I found an outfit with pockets.

Bad news; it's a romper.

[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 17 hours ago

What you don't want to let your tits out to use the public toilet?

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 77 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The Victorian era (and before) was chock full of ladies’ pockets. It’s just that they weren’t sewn into the garment – you’d have a slit in your skirt, and use a waist pocket like this that was separate and worn beneath your outer clothes as an undergarment. You’d line up the slit in your pocket with the slit in your outer garment.

A bonus was you could misalign the slits to easily thwart pickpocketers whilst travelling.

Women losing pockets to fashion is a fairly recent thing, actually – since the early 1900s when slim, body-conforming things like pencil dresses and trousers entered the scene, and natural, non-bustled hips being on display became cool. The secret pocket turned into a handbag, because women were still expected to carry all and sundry in order to keep their face and hair fresh all day; men weren’t required to carry more than a few paper goods, whereas if a woman couldn’t reapply her face and lips all day, a scandal might ensue. Lipstick, powder, and other accoutrements take up more space than a pencil dress allows without ruining the silhouette, so handbags were just assumed. And if you assume handbags, what use are pockets that might ruin the figure?

Nowadays, couture fashion assumes handbags for the same reason architecture assumes lifts. Why ruin your design with 12 staircases?

I want pockets, too, but anyhow, thanks for coming to my TED talk.

[–] morto@piefed.social 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nowadays, couture fashion assumes handbags for the same reason architecture assumes lifts. Why ruin your design with 12 staircases?

Wait, are there places in the world with high buildings without staircases?! What if power goes out?

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In hindsight, that was a really weird analogy. In my defense, I was pretty high.

[–] morto@piefed.social 7 points 1 day ago

Defense accepted. Even the buildings were high.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (11 children)

Womens clothes with pockets are still available, but usually harder to get and less stylish, and thus women often end up picking other preferences over large pockets.

They might want pockets, but they end up preferring easy availability, style and low price over pockets.

The same thing can be seen in other product categories too. People (used to) often say they want a small phone, keyboard phone or phone with really long battery life, but in the end nobody would pay more or sacrifice other qualities over one of these types of phones and thus they went out of fashion.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] pageflight@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'd never heard of tie-on pockets. Cool!

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 18 hours ago

The word pocket comes from pouch. Originally all "pockets" were bags worn either over or under clothing. Attaching them directly to the garment was a 15th century(?) twist.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm gonna start doing amateur pocket elongation with my bad sewing skills

[–] CentipedeFarrier@piefed.social 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Any garment can have a pocket if you sew some cool fabric to the outside!

[–] MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Works even better if you leave an opening too! Wasted many a garment till I learned that trick

[–] nanoswarm9k@lemmus.org 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Glad I waded past the armchair speculators for this field-wrought wisdom.

At your service!

[–] prex@aussie.zone 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fishing vests are unisex.

Now that I think about it neither my wife nor I own one - a christmas opportunity lost

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Tactikool pants also have big pockets, even the women’s version.*

Find them wherever cops get there uniforms at. (Galls comes to mind.)

*Not necessarily fashionable.

[–] prex@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

I'm lucky enough to have overalls supplied and washed by my work. Pockets for days - I'll have to do an EDC post one day.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 5 points 1 day ago
[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well, OP, how about you start a new sewing business?

[–] NichEherVielleicht@feddit.org 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I think OP is drawing comics.

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

They would be richer if they sew pockets onto women's clothes, and sold them to women. Imagine the money!

EDIT: OH , HI MARK!

[–] TotallyNotSpezUpload@startrek.website 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] NichEherVielleicht@feddit.org 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

As is tradition... Now, where are my pockets, for Heaven's Sake? :D

[–] MetalSlugX@piefed.social 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Wanna know why nobody has capitalized on this and added pockets to garments? Because women WONT BUY THEM. The end.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 9 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

It's not that they won't buy them, it's just that there's typically a list of priorities including fashion, availability, price, durability, etc., and pockets is low on that list of concerns. If something is cheap, durable, looks good, can be bought easily nearby or online, and has pockets, it's going to sell well. The problem is that most designers seem to feel that pockets ruin fashion, so you rarely get things that are both fashionable and have useful pockets. Even when there are knock-offs of clothes where fashion isn't the main point, they tend to keep small / no pockets just because whatever they're copying had small / no pockets.

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago

Or, hot take, a company that sells clothes with pockets makes less money than a company that sells clothes without pockets and then offers ladies $50-150 purses to compensate. If you think the fashion industry hasn’t noticed that, you’re crazy.

It’s like how the American auto industry noticed they could make more money selling big vehicles and so all of them just stopped making smaller cars. Plenty of Americans say they want smaller cars, but the American auto makers don’t care.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›