I see your point. When I first started noticing these I thought they were a great invention to conceal women's cankles. As I stated before, my girl has some but she never wears them which is ok with me because she has a pretty smokin' set of get-away sticks.
Why would any woman with nice legs want to completely cover them all the way up past the knee? Why would anyone woman with a nice body wear any clothes at all? Because it's a fashion. It states something different than just bare legs. Women like to mix things up. Maybe it matches their top or something else. Who knows?
I know what your point was. Perhaps you missed my point. Why would it become fashionable for women to wear something that unnecessarily covers up one of the best parts of the female body? And why with something so ugly?
Yeah, this thread is confusing. I had to check to make sure it isn't a revived thread from a long time ago.
Maybe because ugly is subjective? Maybe because fashion is subjective? Perhaps you didn't get my point afterall? Women who wear these boots normally pair them with short skirts/shorts so maybe that's the tradeoff. You get the see other best parts of the female body.
There are a lot of guys who are turned on by women wearing shoes with heels and/or boots. And let's face it, you aren't going to see women in public who are naked. To me, a woman who wears a short skirt paired with a tight sweater along with hose and boots is infinitely sexy compared to a woman who is dressed differently. Mainly because to me, an outfit like a tight sweater and short skirt really accentuates her boobs and ass while most women who are curvy have thick legs thus making boots a very smart (besides fashionable) choice to wear. Wearing boots gives the illusion that the curvy girl's legs are just as good as a woman who has skinny legs due to the fact that boots slim the wearer's legs.
