Says the Telegraph,

The rule banning women from dressing like men – namely by wearing trousers - was first introduced in 1800 by Paris' police chief and has survived repeated attempts to repeal it.
The 1800 rule stipulated than any Parisienne wishing to dress like a man "must present herself to Paris' main police station to obtain authorisation". In 1892 it was slightly relaxed thanks to an amendment which said trousers were permitted "as long as the woman is holding the reins of a horse". Then in 1909, the decree was further watered down when an extra clause was added to allow women in trousers on condition they were "on a bicycle or holding it by the handlebars".

Further attempts to change the law failed in 1969 and again in 2003, when the "minister in charge of gender equality" responded obscurely and, presumably, with a Gallic shrug: "Disuse is sometimes more efficient than (state) intervention in adapting the law to changing mores." Well, perhaps, but given that the state feels comfortable banning the hijab, surely posthumously clearing Coco Chanel of multiple misdemeanors wouldn't ruffle too many feathers - despite the pleasing irony of Paris having one of the world's most draconian dress codes. It would also be an easy - and timely - gesture when that could be salutary: In the Indonesian district of West Aceh, the wearing of "tight trousers and jeans" by Muslim women was recently outlawed and women have been arrested and flogged for flouting the dictate. As such, the French law is not purely the amusing anachronism it should be.

But, really, commenters on the Telegraph's website get the last word, so pithy and relevant are their remarks: In the words of one "Euro-peon Serf," "Cowardly French faggots need something to differentiate themselves from actual women, since they can't do it by conduct, speech, or appearance." Indeed, sir. That's probably what the minister was trying to say.

Women Banned From Wearing Trousers In Paris [Telegraph]
West Aceh Bans 'Tight Trousers' [BBC]
When Women Are Banned From Wearing Trousers [Jakarta Post]

So. Jot this down: Fashion is focusing on the legs now. (Last year, toplessness was all the rage) The goal is to show as much leg as possible. It's not entirely clear when and where a leopard-print bodysuit — worn without skirt or trousers — is appropriate. And honestly? The hat kills this look, for me.


Girdle? Spanx? Hot pants? Whatever. The key to wearing this look is to be lacking in inner thigh.

Have you ever been on your way out to a sidewalk café when you were struck by the terrible feeling you'd forgotten something?

It's imperative to carry a purse, as you haven't any pockets. If you have the time and inclination, you may train a small army of canines to carry your bottled water and tampons.

"Pants! I will not wear them in the fog. I will not wear them for my dog."

Lady GaGa sees this and thinks, Meh. Just another Tuesday.

Silk boxers, while lovely, are not necessarily work-appropriate.

Whatever these ladies are doing, they feel more comfortable doing it without trousers.

Because without jeans, leggings or skirts, you can really show someone how much you love them.

And should that certain someone dare to cover up her legs, well, the punishment is unspeakable.

Earlier: Why Are We Experiencing An Anti-Pants Movement?
Hot For Fall: Toplessness!

I have always thought this was the most genuinely threatening insult I've ever heard, even though I've never heard it since and am not sure whether it had a larger meaning. I briefly tried to make it the latest "Don't tase me, bro!" but it was hard to work into conversation, and when addressed to a man could come off as positively lascivious. I reproduce it here in classic America's Most Wanted style, hoping you or someone you know has information. Or, you know, a really bizarre insult.