Dresses for boys in the 19th century

In the 19th century, boys dressed in dresses. Why? Does anyone know the answer to the question? Perhaps the answer lies in F. Yusupov’s memoirs, where he wrote: “I was wearing, my mother was expecting a daughter’s dowry and children’s sewn pink. I was disappointed and my mother to be comforted, to five years, I wore a little girl. I’m not upset, and even, in contrast, was proud of. ”

dresses boys
dresses boys
dresses boys
dresses boys
dresses boys
dresses boys
dresses boys
dresses boys
dresses boys
dresses boys
  • Charlie

    The history of sex typing apparel is known to very few. Those who know the least are so called “mental health professionals.” Boys were still in dresses/skirts to around age 6 just past 1900 AD because the skirt age to which men also belonged, had as its final members young boys. Allegations of toilet training were just that—erroneous. In fact, toilet use is always easier with pants which can be dropped about the ankles so easily. Why would anyone want billowy fabric to be soiled? The trouser and the skirt are mere activity differences, a matter society only comprehends when women wear either style. Yet not very far back, society still believed pants were male only. Evelyn Bross was arrested in Chicago in 1943 for wearing pants and ordered to see a psychiatrist for six months by judge Jacob Braude. Fifty years later, a woman was fired in New Jersey for coming to work at JC Penney in slacks. The problem of confusion is entirely due to ignorance and the reliance on faulty associative reasoning. (“Skirts are female because only females wear skirts”) Oh really? But there are the ever present Scots, and the lesser known but more dramatic Greeks wearing them. Pants were invented for sitting on horses! That’s an activity difference—not a style difference. If men want to “dress like men,” they should shave less. In AD 393 by edict of Emperor Theodosius I, men in pants were exiled from Rome as political subversives and their property confiscated. In AD 1431, the English invaders in France burned Joan of Arc for violating Deuteronomy 22:5 since she had worn pants (in HORSEBACK riding!) Did Jesus not understand that verse? In Luke 7 Jesus says the Roman centurion had the greatest faith, and those soldiers as any honest archaeologist or art historian knows—wore skirts. As for fancy apparel in general, that stems from aristocracy, nobility and royalty—not “effeminacy.” Have a look at what the seagoing warrior Sir Francis Drake wore, or what King James of England wore when the KJV Bible was completed in 1611. Because of psychiatrists and psychologists and ministers raving about “cross-dressing,” the apparel industry is only 75% of its potential size as skirt apparel and fancy clothes should be regarded as individual differences, and not along gender lines. That is ALREADY how society looks at clothes, but only regarding when women make choices. Bras? They are for women and female impersonators. In AD 1664 King Louis XIV of France, who invented high heels and wore skirts in ballet (exaggerated styles based on ancient Roman military costume) sent 4,000 soldiers in “petticoat breeches” (also called “Rhinegraves”) to defend the Austrian frontier against a Turkish invasion. The Turks lost. What freed women to wear pants? Not psychiatrists or psychologists or ministers. It was a major social force—18 million USA women went into war factory work in World War 2 and wore pants for the first time. The influence of Katherine Hepburn and Marlene Dietrich wearing pants in film had not one tenth of one percent as much impact. Spencer Tracy made obnoxious remarks about Hepburn’s pants. Based on crotch anatomy, which sex has a better claim to the use of skirts? Not the female, yet this is no reason to ban them, nor should any ban be desired, as society suffers aesthetically from a severe “skirt deficit.”