this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2026
908 points (98.6% liked)

Comic Strips

23758 readers
1786 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

Rules
  1. 😇 Be Nice!

    • Treat others with respect and dignity. Friendly banter is okay, as long as it is mutual; keyword: friendly.
  2. 🏘️ Community Standards

    • Comics should be a full story, from start to finish, in one post.
    • Posts should be safe and enjoyable by the majority of community members, both here on lemmy.world and other instances.
    • Any comic that would qualify as raunchy, lewd, or otherwise draw unwanted attention by nosy coworkers, spouses, or family members should be tagged as NSFW.
    • Moderators have final say on what and what does not qualify as appropriate. Use common sense, and if need be, err on the side of caution.
  3. 🧬 Keep it Real

    • Comics should be made and posted by real human beans, not by automated means like bots or AI. This is not the community for that sort of thing.
  4. 📽️ Credit Where Credit is Due

    • Comics should include the original attribution to the artist(s) involved, and be unmodified. Bonus points if you include a link back to their website. When in doubt, use a reverse image search to try to find the original version. Repeat offenders will have their posts removed, be temporarily banned from posting, or if all else fails, be permanently banned from posting.
    • Attributions include, but are not limited to, watermarks, links, or other text or imagery that artists add to their comics to use for identification purposes. If you find a comic without any such markings, it would be a good idea to see if you can find an original version. If one cannot be found, say so and ask the community for help!
  5. 📋 Post Formatting

    • Post an image, gallery, or link to a specific comic hosted on another site; e.g., the author's website.
    • Meta posts about the community should be tagged with [Meta] either at the beginning or the end of the post title.
    • When linking to a comic hosted on another site, ensure the link is to the comic itself and not just to the website; e.g.,
      ✅ Correct: https://xkcd.com/386/
      ❌ Incorrect: https://xkcd.com/
  6. 📬 Post Frequency/SPAM

    • Each user (regardless of instance) may post up to five (5 🖐) comics a day. This can be any combination of personal comics you have written yourself, or other author's comics. Any comics exceeding five (5 🖐) will be removed.
  7. 🏴‍☠️ Internationalization (i18n)

    • Non-English posts are welcome. Please tag the post title with the original language, and include an English translation in the body of the post; e.g.,
      Sí, por favor [Spanish/Español]
  8. 🍿 Moderation

    • We are human, just like most everybody else on Lemmy. If you feel a moderation decision was made in error, you are welcome to reach out to anybody on the moderation team for clarification. Keep in mind that moderation decisions may be final.
    • When reporting posts and/or comments, quote which rule is being broken, and why you feel it broke the rules.
Banned Artists

The following artists are banned from the community.

  1. Jago
  2. Stonetoss

It should be noted that when you make reports, it is your responsibility to provide rational reasoning why something should be removed. Saying it simply breaks community rules is not always good enough.

Web Accessibility

Note: This is not a rule, but a helpful suggestion.

When posting images, you should strive to add alt-text for screen readers to use to describe the image you're posting:

Another helpful thing to do is to provide a transcription of the text in your images, as well as brief descriptions of what's going on. (example)

Web of Links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 84 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

The Victorian era (and before) was chock full of ladies’ pockets. It’s just that they weren’t sewn into the garment – you’d have a slit in your skirt, and use a waist pocket like this that was separate and worn beneath your outer clothes as an undergarment. You’d line up the slit in your pocket with the slit in your outer garment.

A bonus was you could misalign the slits to easily thwart pickpocketers whilst travelling.

Women losing pockets to fashion is a fairly recent thing, actually – since the early 1900s when slim, body-conforming things like pencil dresses and trousers entered the scene, and natural, non-bustled hips being on display became cool. The secret pocket turned into a handbag, because women were still expected to carry all and sundry in order to keep their face and hair fresh all day; men weren’t required to carry more than a few paper goods, whereas if a woman couldn’t reapply her face and lips all day, a scandal might ensue. Lipstick, powder, and other accoutrements take up more space than a pencil dress allows without ruining the silhouette, so handbags were just assumed. And if you assume handbags, what use are pockets that might ruin the figure?

Nowadays, couture fashion assumes handbags for the same reason architecture assumes lifts. Why ruin your design with 12 staircases?

I want pockets, too, but anyhow, thanks for coming to my TED talk.

e: updated link to a V&A article since my other link suddenly died. This is a much better link, anyhow.

[–] morto@piefed.social 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Nowadays, couture fashion assumes handbags for the same reason architecture assumes lifts. Why ruin your design with 12 staircases?

Wait, are there places in the world with high buildings without staircases?! What if power goes out?

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 22 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In hindsight, that was a really weird analogy. In my defense, I was pretty high.

[–] morto@piefed.social 10 points 4 months ago

Defense accepted. Even the buildings were high.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Womens clothes with pockets are still available, but usually harder to get and less stylish, and thus women often end up picking other preferences over large pockets.

They might want pockets, but they end up preferring easy availability, style and low price over pockets.

The same thing can be seen in other product categories too. People (used to) often say they want a small phone, keyboard phone or phone with really long battery life, but in the end nobody would pay more or sacrifice other qualities over one of these types of phones and thus they went out of fashion.

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

To be fair, it’s really hard to design fashion that’s stylish AND has pockets.

It’s hard enough to design something that looks good on a variably sized and kinetic shape. Now make it look good and have storage.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I can assure you that it can be done with relative ease, for example I usually wear cargo pants, anime/metal/old CRPG tshirts, with a Czech military field jacket. I have all the pockets and make it work damned well, but I'm also five foot five and look like someone who would try to steal an mrap if I found one unprotected so your mileage may vary.

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Well, yes, but I meant the form-fitting fashion that was the rage when pockets disappeared from womenswear between like 1910 and the late 1950s. Women still weren’t allowed to wear overtly manly clothes except in certain contexts, so everything from the waist down had to be overtly feminine, since just wearing man pants was too subversive.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

So... you dress "like a man"?

Don't get me wrong, I like it. But, there should be a middle ground where someone can not completely abandon the modern standards of feminine clothing, while also having decently sized pockets. The problem seems to be that every time women are asked to choose between style and pockets they choose style. Every time it's between cost and pockets, they choose cost. If it's between availability and pockets, they choose the thing that's more easily available.

BTW, have you heard of Articles of Interest? It's a podcast from a former 99 percent invisible producer(?) who went on to make a podcast about clothing. The first episode is all about how military clothing came to influence almost all modern non-military clothing.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Motherfucker. Didn't realize I accidentally forgot a word, I'm a dude and not in the gender neutral way either. I was making a shit post about mine fucken appearance.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Was "Motherfucker" the world you forgot? If so, where does it go in that post?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Wren@lemmy.today 1 points 4 months ago

We might be twins.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

It very much depends on what's meant by "stylish".

If the style means "no pockets", yes, that's very much contradictory.

But the point remains: If you want pockets but you want to have a pocketless style more, then you won't have pockets.

[–] pageflight@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'd never heard of tie-on pockets. Cool!

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

The word pocket comes from pouch. Originally all "pockets" were bags worn either over or under clothing. Attaching them directly to the garment was a 15th century(?) twist.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 18 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm gonna start doing amateur pocket elongation with my bad sewing skills

[–] CentipedeFarrier@piefed.social 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Any garment can have a pocket if you sew some cool fabric to the outside!

[–] MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Works even better if you leave an opening too! Wasted many a garment till I learned that trick

[–] nanoswarm9k@lemmus.org 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Glad I waded past the armchair speculators for this field-wrought wisdom.

[–] MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 months ago

At your service!

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 17 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I told my partner at the time about this and he didn't believe me.

We got up early on our day off for a mission to the mall to find two things: Knee length women's shorts with pockets and women's pants with pockets that fit my phone. After five hours we found neither.

I bought slim fit men's pants, like I always do, and took in the waist. Oh, and hospital scrubs.

Ladies, I've turned my mother and several friends onto doctor pants — they're plain in every colour, full of pockets, stain resistant, dry quickly, have drawstring/elastic waists, and people ask you for medical advice at the pharmacy.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

These days, can you find them online? I can imagine that a local mall might not have much selection, but the Internets are huge.

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Women's sizes are nuts. That was the other thing we discovered — my ex was just straight up medium shirts, same pants size in every store. I had no idea men had somewhat standardized sizes. Women's sizes are basically astrology.

Plus, I have hella hips and a narrow waist, so depending on where the pants sit I either have a delicious muffin top or I'm swimming in them. Thus: Hospital pants.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I really don't get the sizing thing. I've heard it's because if the manufacturer makes a bigger size but labels it a smaller size, some women will enthusiastically buy it because they're happy to be wearing a smaller (labelled) size. But, that sounds like BS to me.

I think maybe a difference is that men tend to rarely wear tight clothing, so even if the arms are a bit too long, or the chest is a bit too tight a medium still works. But, for women, because it's designed to have a body-hugging style, if it's too tight anywhere it's too small. Like, I can't imagine any men's shirt that would result in a muffin top. For a guy, that might mean you're off by two sizes, not just one.

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No, it’s definitely a thing, and trends more in clothes geared to older women. When I shopped at Forever 21 back when I was in my 20s, I was a size 4-6; when I shopped at REI I was a size 4. When I shopped at Chicos, on the other hand, which caters almost exclusively to older women, I was a size 0. And sometimes even that was too big on me.

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 1 points 4 months ago

I want to see some numbers confirming that's actually driving sales. I buy what fits regardless of the number in the waistband.

[–] Melobol@lemmy.ml 11 points 4 months ago
[–] psoul@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I know it’s counter intuitive but women are allowed to shop in the men’s section if what they want is boring functionality.

Same applies to men. My favorite jacket was found in the women’s section.

Though I understand that if you want pockets on a dress, like a cargo dress, that will have to be a DIY item.

[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 4 months ago

I have a fancy purple dress I bought to wear to a function. Got so many compliments the night I wore it. Everytime, I'd respond by putting my hand in the large pockets, "thanks, it has pockets" with a big ole smile

They're out there, rare, but out there

[–] prex@aussie.zone 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Fishing vests are unisex.

Now that I think about it neither my wife nor I own one - a christmas opportunity lost

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Tactikool pants also have big pockets, even the women’s version.*

Find them wherever cops get there uniforms at. (Galls comes to mind.)

*Not necessarily fashionable.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MetalSlugX@piefed.social 6 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Wanna know why nobody has capitalized on this and added pockets to garments? Because women WONT BUY THEM. The end.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It's not that they won't buy them, it's just that there's typically a list of priorities including fashion, availability, price, durability, etc., and pockets is low on that list of concerns. If something is cheap, durable, looks good, can be bought easily nearby or online, and has pockets, it's going to sell well. The problem is that most designers seem to feel that pockets ruin fashion, so you rarely get things that are both fashionable and have useful pockets. Even when there are knock-offs of clothes where fashion isn't the main point, they tend to keep small / no pockets just because whatever they're copying had small / no pockets.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Or, hot take, a company that sells clothes with pockets makes less money than a company that sells clothes without pockets and then offers ladies $50-150 purses to compensate. If you think the fashion industry hasn’t noticed that, you’re crazy.

It’s like how the American auto industry noticed they could make more money selling big vehicles and so all of them just stopped making smaller cars. Plenty of Americans say they want smaller cars, but the American auto makers don’t care.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 5 points 4 months ago
[–] webkitten@piefed.social 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Good news; I found an outfit with pockets.

Bad news; it's a romper.

[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 months ago

What you don't want to let your tits out to use the public toilet?

[–] affenlehrer@feddit.org 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No pocket sand or ravioli without pockets

load more comments
view more: next ›