Gwyneth Paltrow has been turning more heads than usual at the premieres for her new movie Iron Man. Paltrow, 35, showed up to a string of screenings wearing tiny black dresses paired with towering pumps.
The dearth of fabric has caused some media types to encourage women – even ridiculously fit women with fabulous, flauntable legs – to tone it down a bit. Be fashionable, they seem to say, just don’t do it in a miniskirt.
But it doesn’t seem that the whole issue here is about moms wearing minis. At least part of the issue appears to be about women wearing skirts that are entirely too short (see above, left). Some things should, in public, always be covered by clothing. When it looks as though the public (whether lucky or unlucky is a different issue entirely) will be able to see those things if one bends to pick up a pen, I think that, plain and simple, your skirt is too short.
I firmly believe that confidence and a bit of style – not a birthday after 1980 – should be the only requirements for pulling off a short dress. But if your bare bottom is sitting on the screening room seat because that one yard of fabric can't quite cut it, at least put on a pair of leggings.
What’s your take? Should there be a direct relationship between age and skirt length, or should we all just try to keep from flashing one another when we cross our legs? Post your comments and tell us what you think.
And check out at the two dresses below – they're far from frumpy, and we think they’d look great on women of any age.
Nanette Lepore must have had this debate in mind when naming the "Alluring" Minidress ($130). It's covered up on top and short enough to show off a bit, it's got all the visual balance you need built right in.
This stretch satin dress ($160) makes a sexy, curve-hugging statement, but doesn't shout out the cut and color of your lingerie.
And believe it or not, this is not a new debate. Check out the hot topic of whether women like Hally Berry and Kate Moss are too old for a mini-skirt.