When talking about women’s clothes, what else can I say to mean “low-cut”? Please tell me some common alternatives.

Question

bsloan7 · Accepted Answer

The only things I can think of right now are “revealing” or saying the shirt/dress has a plunging neckline. The latter means extremely low-cut though.

bsloan7 · Answer

@studiousboy No, when you say suit, people are going to assume that that includes a shirt. People don’t usually just go around wearing suit jackets with no shirt underneath. So you have to be a little more specific.

He was just wearing a navy blue suit jacket with no shirt underneath.

He was just wearing a navy blue suit jacket with no shirt underneath.

bsloan7 · Answer

Originally, I was going to say I think leaving “jacket” in is better, but actually I think the sentence is equally natural without it as long as you mention he wasn’t wearing a shirt underneath.

bsloan7 · Answer

@studiousboy I wouldn’t say it’s wordy, but yes, you can leave it out if you want to. It’s natural either way.

bsloan7 · Answer

@studiousboy I mean women usually wear dresses without pants, so I don’t see why you would need to point that out.

bsloan7 · Answer

@studiousboy She was wearing a blouse/shirt and no pants.

bsloan7 · Answer

Yes, “pantless” is a word. I’m not sure if “pantsless” is correct, but I’ve definitely heard it before. You can also just say:

She wasn’t wearing (any) pants.

bsloan7 · Answer

@studiousboy That’s technically correct, but people would assume he wasn’t wearing anything on his upper body at all. No shirt, no jacket, nothing.

bsloan7 · Answer

@studiousboy No, going commando means not wearing underwear. That has nothing to do with whether someone is wearing a shirt or not.

bsloan7 · Answer

@studiousboy No, a regular shirt that you wear under a suit jacket is not underwear. I don’t even think men’s undershirts (commonly called “wife beaters”) are considered underwear. Underwear includes bras, panties, boxers, briefs, boxer briefs, etc.

bsloan7 · Answer

@studiousboy No, not wearing a bra is not called going commando. “Go commando” is only used when someone isn’t wearing underwear on the lower half of their body.

bsloan7 · Answer

@studiousboy No, we would just say “she wasn’t wearing a bra” or “she was braless”.

bsloan7 · Answer

@studiousboy I honestly don’t know the grammatical reasoning for this. I just know that “where” sounds more natural to me than “when” here. It might be incorrect, but this is something that you’ll hear a lot.

bsloan7 · Answer

@studiousboy We only use “where” with “time” in certain situations. It’s usually in sentences like the one you asked about (in a time where…).

“Especially” applies to “young women”. She’s noting that young women are a specific group of people who are being listened to and encouraged and the importance of that.

bsloan7 · Answer

@studiousboy Yes 👍🏾

bsloan7 · Answer

@studiousboy No, you don’t always have to use “especially” before the thing you’re emphasizing. It actually sounds more natural after it here. “Especially young women” doesn’t really work in this case. The word “especially” also might have been a bit of an afterthought for her, which is probably why she said “young women especially” instead of “women, especially young women”.

bsloan7 · Answer

@studiousboy I think they’re equally natural.

bsloan7 · Answer

@studiousboy No, “especially” only applies to “young women”. And using the context of the rest of the sentence, we already know she’s comparing the treatment of women in the past to how women are treated now.

bsloan7 · Answer

@studiousboy No, it shouldn’t be “are”. And I think you think that because the punctuation is wrong. It should be:

I think we’re really lucky, both Cindy and I, to be growing up in a time where young women especially are being listened to and encouraged to speak their minds.

It’s just one long sentence. “Both Cindy and I” isn’t necessary to this sentence. She just added it for clarification.

bsloan7 · Answer

If you want to separate it into two sentences, then “are” would be correct. But this is a direct quote of what the actress said.

bsloan7 · Answer

@studiousboy Yes, “necessary to” sounds more natural here to me. It can absolutely go with “to”.

bsloan7 · Answer

@studiousboy I would say “for” is probably the best here. But really, I don’t think this sentence is very natural. Usually, something is critical to the success of something else. But I don’t often hear things like “your vote will be critical for/to me”. I think it sounds more natural to say something like “your vote will play a critical role in the election”.

When talking about women’s clothes, what else can I say to mean “low-cut”? Please tell me some common alternatives. See a translation

The only things I can think of right now are “revealing” or saying the shirt/dress has a plunging neckline. The latter means extremely low-cut though.

The only things I can think of right now are “revealing” or saying the shirt/dress has a plunging neckline. The latter means extremely low-cut though.

@studiousboy No, when you say suit, people are going to assume that that includes a shirt. People don’t usually just go around wearing suit jackets with no shirt underneath. So you have to be a little more specific.He was just wearing a navy blue suit jacket with no shirt underneath.

Originally, I was going to say I think leaving “jacket” in is better, but actually I think the sentence is equally natural without it as long as you mention he wasn’t wearing a shirt underneath.

@studiousboy I wouldn’t say it’s wordy, but yes, you can leave it out if you want to. It’s natural either way.

@studiousboy I mean women usually wear dresses without pants, so I don’t see why you would need to point that out.

If you want to separate it into two sentences, then “are” would be correct. But this is a direct quote of what the actress said.

@studiousboy Yes, “necessary to” sounds more natural here to me. It can absolutely go with “to”.

When talking about women’s clothes, what else can I say to mean “low-cut”? Please tell me some common alternatives.

@studiousboy No, when you say suit, people are going to assume that that includes a shirt. People don’t usually just go around wearing suit jackets with no shirt underneath. So you have to be a little more specific.

He was just wearing a navy blue suit jacket with no shirt underneath.