3 ms·

WOULD, not "could"

• redeeman 3y ago
  to downvoters: are you suggesting it was illegal for women to wear pants back then? (and no, the paris decree does not count). There were female marketed "trousers" appearing in the 1850s, so it is clearly completely retarded to suggest that the french artists "couldnt envision women wearing pants". But carry on with the official party line, but do so knowingly that it is fake.
  • macintux 3y ago
    It's quite possible that the downvotes were expressing confusion/annoyance at the brevity and lack of context of your comment without additional explanation. There are three different "could"s in the comment to which you're replying. I think, had your comment included the second paragraph, it would have been much more useful.
  • joks 3y ago
    Something does not need to be illegal for it to be unacceptable at the time
    • redeeman 3y ago
      that might depend on your definition of unacceptable, if it is something that people do not like, but dont take so much offense to as to make illegal, i would say that it is simply discouraged or looked down upon, but not "unacceptable" or "unimaginable". I also highly doubt there was a 100% universally shared view on female pants at the time.