• By -


From my understanding, it's because way back in the middle ages and renaissance, the men would usually dress themselves while women were dressed by servants (in the case of rich people at least), so the buttons were placed to be in the right hand of whoever was doing them up, and they're still like that because of tradition.


You are basically correct 😁😊


Now I have Chaim Topol singing "Tradition!" Stuck in my head lol




Do duoo, doo, doota, doowootoo, do, TRADITION!


Women are to be dressed by the SERVAAAAAANTS!


>Chaim Topol 89 and still kicken! Tradition!!!


This is also why young boys’ clothing is the same button orientation as womens’: because until a certain age the child is not dressing himself.


And so men could reach their guns more easily.


Swords. Guns weren't much of a thing in the middle ages. I'm not sure that fact is correct anyway, but it wasn't guns.


I thought it was just a euphemism for penises.


What *isn't* a euphemism for penises?




If a word isn’t a euphemism for one, it’s a euphemism for the other.


Seriously though now I'm trying to think of a word that CAN'T be used as a euphemism and I can't.




Is that dichlorodifluoromethane in your pants, or are you just happy to see me?


Vagina isn't a euphemism.


Vagina is the Latin word for Sheath.




Oh right I just googled the reason when I saw the question and an article said "so soldiers could reach their weapons more easily" didn't realise it was before the gun era.


How would the buttons on a shirt change that in any way?


On a coat or jacket because of the overlap it's easier to reach in with the right hand to get something, which is why in the modern blazer the wallet is carried in the left breast pocket. The shirt just matches the coat. I don't know if that's actually the reason but that's the logic I heard


I was going to make a joke reply about how crossbows were basically the closest thing to guns at the time in function, but a. I knew some people wouldn’t get it and b. swords are cool~~er than crossbows~~ either way.


What does buttoned shirt has to do with a gun/sword reachability?


Don't cross your streams


On which side does a right handed person carry their sword?


Blade carried 2 on his back


Then I'm quite sure his buttons weren't on the way


Thanks to this great button position discovery!


Button makers hate this one weird trick


So did Geralt


Which was actually wildly impractical for most swords except short swords or with very specific sheathes that were more like hooks instead of sleeves.


Most swords were carried in a scabbard on the hip, opposite side of the hand that wields it. Carrying swords on your back is impractical as most swords were too long to pull out that way.


Usually the left, easier to cross-draw then to try to draw straight out from the same side and flip it around (they were usually carried blade facing down). Also faster to be ready in a sudden life-or-death situation.


More likely a knife or cudgel in an inside jacket pocket. The pre gun version of concealed carry. It's also the reason the lady traditionally walks on the left. It keeps the man's right arm free to draw a weapon if required.


If cross drawing wouldn't that mean he probably cut her when withdrawing?


She's not glued to 50% of his body. Even cross drawing a sword would be fine. It's once it's free you need room to swing it.


Nothing, some people just have to let you know they are always thinking about weapons' because they're overcompensating. Edit: Oh no, the small pee pee boys downvoted me proving my point.


I really think so. I asked, because if you're gonna move your arm across your body you'll have to also move it back. You're meeting your seems while doing movements in both directions so i don't understand the issue tbh. It's not like buttons or seams are such a big issue and so much on the way


The shirt buttons the same way as the coat, and the coat goes over the sword, which is kept on the left hip and drawn with the right hand across the body


Back in the day of regular sword and dagger carrying, shirts didn't have buttons, and men didn't wear coats , sword belts and hangers went over the doublet , and under a cloak/ cape if worn


Jesus I hadn't thought of that and I guess you're right and the idea that men in the 1600s didn't wear coats has rocked my entire world


pretty rare, though there are some Spanish patterns in libro de geometria practica y traça that are coat like, but are a semicircular mantle with 'sleeves' that are open along the top, 1/2, 3/4 and full circle capes were by far more usual for men. Most of the black things with sleeves you see on notable men are academic gowns, the forerunner of the graduation gown


i dont know about you but i keep my "gun" in my pants


My weapon is for pleasure, my gun is for fun...wooh wooh wooh oooh, wooh wooh wooh-oooh.


Exactly! If my shirt buttons were on the left, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to easily reach my conceal carry. Thank God for buttons on the right! Throughout history, the first thing a tyrant does, every *clap* single *clap* time *clap*, is force all shirts to be made with buttons on people's left. A nation with buttons on the left, is a nation of slaves... That's what I always say. *eagle screams in the distance*


This makes way more sense than what I found when I looked this up before. What I found was something that had to do with how women used to ride horses with long dresses and keeping the wind from being able to blow open the space between buttons. But it said they sat with their legs on the left side of the horse, meaning their shirt design would fall right into the trap they were supposedly made to avoid


I was about to say


A teacher explained to us at some point that it was so a man could strip out of his overclothes while holding a sword at the ready. This never really made sense to me though . I’m not sure how often that would be advantageous. Your explanation sounds way smarter and likely. Don’t you just love how teachers can kinda just tell your kids shit and they have to believe it for decades?


So OPs point is technically correct?


Not with "each other" but everything else is correct


In Radio Yerevan sense of being correct.


Men do all the undressing, lol


Yeah, I guess it is


So it's just another plot to piss off lefties.


This is wrong, it had to do with men dressing themselves while women were usually dressed by servants


So it’s to make (un)dressing women easier - OP‘s half correct.


It has nothing to do with couples though. And women were usually the ones who dresses other women


The best kind of correct.


Wealthy women? Or all women? Genuinely curious!


Assuming all women have servants? Yes all women. Otherwise no.


My understanding is the main reason isn't that men dressed themselves but men carried swords. If the buttons were reversed on mens shirts you could catch the guard (or other protrustions) of your sword in your shirt when drawing it.


Shirts didn't have buttons at that time, sword hangers and belts were worn outside your doublet and under a cloak/ cape if worn , which led to fashions of cape wearing that left the sword arm free . The first people to have buttons rather than hooks were upper class men ( who would have had dressers , which is super handy when you've got your pants tied to your jacket and 2 dozen small round buttons to do up on your doublet) followed by upper class women and middle class men and so forth


Happy cake day


If that were the case, wouldn't the buttons be on the "women's clothing" side for both women's and men's clothing, not opposite of one another...?


Finally, a voice of reason


Maybe they originally started all on one side like men's buttons but when servants started dressing women they switched the women's buttons around so the servants wouldn't be confused. Totally guessing though, I didn't even know women's buttons were on the opposite side lol.


hey op i liked your shower thought. it doesnt have to be objectively correct to be a shower thought. its not like youre stating these things as known facts, youre just saying that this is a thing you thought might be a good explanation for buttons.


OP was also very close with (apparently) no historical context. It's a great starting hypothesis.


Except that since it contains objectively untrue information (buttons being on opposite sides, when you faced each other they would be on the same side. It’s like saying all a left handed person has to do to use right handed scissors is turn around) it’s getting panned.


youre right, but youre also annoying. which is why i made the comment. this isnt r/objectivelycorrectopinions. people are allowed to have wrong shower thoughts. its not like this opinion is offensive to anyone beyond being just wrong.


Actually no.. womens clothes are “backwards” because way back women didn’t dress themselves, a servant did that. Men clothes are designed to be put on by the wearer


Yes, but it's the same with baby clothes...and ain't no way my 6 month old son dressing himself 🤣 It always feels backwards when I dress him in stuff with buttons.


What.. do you think they didn’t start training female babies from the start or something?


wait , what?


In many places, men's and women's buttons are on the opposite side. My (male) shirts have the buttons on the right. My wife's shirts have buttons on the left.


Ah but is it on the right/left from the wearers' perspective, or the person un/dressing them?






No. It's because back in the day men dressed themselves and women had an assistant to dress them. Women's clothing button Ms were backwards are the were placed to be used by someone not wearing the clothes.


In the US the zips are the other way to the UK so a US male zip is a female zip in the UK. At least that was my experience with a Nike Hoody back in 2008. May also be the same with buttons. Idk.


Everyone else saying it's something from medieval times


Yeah I don’t buy it because of my experience.


It was a lady Nike hoodie. It's ok to say it. If it fits you well, who cares?


They would have to be in the same position for it to make sense that it was for both of them to undress each other?


Apparently shower thoughts now equal "I'm ignorant and too lazy to Google"


I'm not getting on my phone to Google something while in the shower, it ain't waterproof.


Then why would you be posting on reddit?


Explain what r/Showerthoughts is for - without looking at the sidebars.


Obviously it's the inverse to /r/AskReddit. We just are always thinking of factual info while showering.


I wasn't asking you... never mind.


But you could have googled it before posting here


But then it would have been a TIL, not a shower thought.


People get wierd questions in shower thoughts, but if you google it and research then what's the point of this sub?. It will be more like " today I learnt this" which is completely different


A shower saw is not something that isn't easily googleable a thing.... A shower thought could be something like "how should a dog wear a pants" or something that doesn't have a definite rational logical or historical answer.


r/Showerthoughts isn't a sub like r/answers or r/nostupidquestions, it's for random thoughts that aren't meant to be answered.


Yeah, no, they'd be the same then.


I’m gay and wondered why it was so difficult to undress my partner, thanks!


I dress myself up more than someone undresses me and the ratio is probably 10000000:0 soo...


No, it's because in the past, women were dressed and men dressed themselves.


When I was a kid it wasn't uncommon for hand-me-downs to come from friends and neighbours. Sometimes a bag of clothes would just get passed around and people would pick and choose what they wanted. We were all fine with hand-me-downs, but there was nothing like the absolute horror when somebody pointed out that the fly on your jeans was the "wrong way 'round" and you realised you were wearing a girl's pants!


Jokes on y’all, I have more mens shirts than womens shirts


You're probably my kind of woman then


Bold, assuming gender


This is incorrect and makes no sense. All men are left-handed and all women are right-handed?


I was having trouble too.. this makes far more sense. Thanks.




This actually does make sense, but the real reason is because servants used to dress women. The buttons on women's clothing are put on the opposite side, so that to the person who is dressing the woman they appear to be on the correct side. Obviously women dress themselves these days, but this switch never switched back.


No but you can use the same hand on a women's shirt on someone else and on your own shirt on you because they are reversed.


Then one person would have to do all the undressing. So they wouldn't be undressing each other as stated


No. I undress her and she undresses me. So the button would be in the same configurations as you're used to.


It's not about what you are used to, it's about whether you are more likely to be left-handed or right-handed


Absolutely not. You practice buttoning shirts in one way most of your life. Doesn't matter which way really. This is proven by women and men having mirrored shirts and a majority being right handed and still manages just fine buttoning their shirts.


I'm not saying you can't get used to it, I'm saying that's the reason there wouldn't be an equal distribution of convenience when a man and a woman are undressing each other


No but an overwhelming enough majority are to make this make sense


This isn't the reason, but I suppose it's a helpful coincidence


It doesn't even work though. They would have to be in the *same* position for it to make sense that it was for both of them to undress each other.


The buttons are opposite. If you are standing opposite someone else, then the buttons are going to be the same. The only difference is perspective


Actually it's because back in the day women were expected to be dressed by someone else because apparently they were so delicate and/or inept that they couldn't do it themselves


Its not that they were "inept" but you already notice how big was those dresses, how many layers they had to dress, they also had to lace their corset... its very hard to dress those dresses without help. Of course this was just for the rich people, poor woman used to wear more simply oufits.


Actually for women it was made that way to make it better to get dressed by a servant rather then doing it yourself


So you're telling me buttons aren't LGBTQ friendly?


Then they would both be like womens clothing


I thought this was because men and women sat separately in church and the womens buttons got placed on the other side so men couldn't look in their chlothes


This is not the reason, but it did make me laugh


home of phobia 😩🤬


Probably something you could have looked up instead of posting as a shower thought. Not really a shower thought at all.


To all the people that feel the need to correct this post how about this version. "Buttons being on opposite sides is useful nowadays so couples can undress each other easily."


But that doesn't even work. They would have to be in the *same* position for it to make sense that it was for both of them to undress each other. People are correcting OP because not only is their explanation on the reason wrong, it's not even self consistent. >opposite sides is useful so couples can undress each other easily Because all men are left handed and all women are right handed?


Huh. That's cute. Edit: I wasn't being sarcastic you idiots.


Finally, something that makes sense. I always heard that women's blouses had reversed orientation on the buttons (for right-handed fastening), because of servants doing the buttoning for their employer. Few people had servants, and everyone back then liked to do the fun undressing part.


The problem with your assertion is that you assume few people had servants but everyone wore blouses so this can't be true. However in reality the only people who wore blouses were people with servants. poor people couldn't afford buttons and frills on their shirts so of course they wouldn't be designed for poor people.


That's... a tad hetero-normative don't you think? Couples? What's is this, 1950?


Dude it's so the servants could dress the queen or princess or whatever easier


They had buttons before 1950


Lol. True that


I mean, the standard probably was adopted way back then, so it makes sense for it to be heteronormative and archaic


Aye, true, but the statement by OP is still a little bit generalistic nd presumptuous don't you think?


To be fair, the whole sub is for generalized, presumptuous, half-baked random thoughts. But I agree that we should be mindful about these things


Fair point...


And you think old timey clothing designers who made this a tradition wouldn't be heteronormative why?


It also only makes sense if all men are left handed and all women are right handed. They would have to be in the *same* position for it to make sense that it was for both of them to undress each other. Also it comes from medieval tradition when women were dressed by servants, so yeah heteronormative kinda makes sense.


Have a day off


Haha my first thought too


When _all_ the people accept everyone else as their equals, and treat them as such, I'll take a day off.


Or you could just not try to find offence in everything anyone ever says and does, particularly when it is clear no offence is intended. Also, you've provided no solution to this perceived offence, purely displeasure. So, have a day off.


It's not about _finding_ offense. It's about someone not thinking about what they write. Intention or not, it's still offensive to not be considered in a statement. Also the solution would have been to not post the comment in the first place, rather than assume a cis stance on it.


Your assertions are ridiculous. Not all statements can be entirely inclusive of everyone at all times. To think they can is extremely naive. It seems you've chosen a hill to die on, irrespective of the fact OP has clearly in no way intended to offend anyone and is talking about fucking buttons on clothes for fuck's sake. What about people with no fingers? What about blind people who can't see buttons? What about people who don't have the Internet and can't read OP's post? Grrrrrrrrr. I'm offended on behalf of all of them. Grrrrrrrrr.


Fuck off with your bullshit of trying to force people to think how you want them to think and how you want them to express themselves. Just fuck off. I just expressed myself as I wished and I feel so much better now. PS: FUCK OFF and have a nice day.


Amd you buddy


OP didn’t take a stance though. They gave a perspective. How often do you see perspectives that are all inclusive and sensitive of literally every person? This is not for me; I don’t need your answer. This is a question for you to answer to yourself. If you need an exercise, you can go study your favorite speech or song or poem and look for a group that was not considered. P.s. It seems like you got pretty flustered by the post, so I hope your day improves and you have less stress later.


Not flustered in the slightest, but appreciate the sentiment nonetheless. Have a good day too


Even if it is hetero normative, do you think we started making shirts only in the past few decades where homosexuality became widely accepted or rather hundreds of years ago? Yeah. And since majority of humans are hetero it would still make sense from a business point of view because it would help the biggest amount of customers. It's not the reason though.


Never said it was. Was just pointing out the assumption.


/s or nah?


No, it's the probably like the 1500s because we're talking about the origin of clothing traditions in Indo-European cultures so please get off your soapbox. Yes, pretty much everything was hetro-normative 6 centuries ago. Too much of our culture is hetro-normative nowadays. Too much of our culture wants to be offended, too.


It's not about the buttons dude, it's about the assumption their partner was the opposite sex from them


Yeah because in this example when talking about the difference between MEN AND WOMEN'S CLOTHES...


Again, that's presumptuous of someone wearing clothes deemed to be made for their gender, and still that their partner would be of the _opposite_ gender, which is the assumption I've taken issue with


Okay well it's not OPs fault and they're not perpetuating an assumption, they're being historically accurate. Get over yourself.


It is also much easier to maintain zippers and buttons on an even surface. From a design perspective, boobs look challenging to make comfortable with a dress and a front facing zipper.




I didn't even know they were reversed. I feel like uncultured swine now.


syke i can barely get my own clothes off, let alone undress someone else


It would be funny if In a porn the woman had troubles undressing the guy lol


I normally just dislocate my joints and then undress myself as if I was being undressed by a woman and not just by myself Works well with the fantasy


Then why are kids shirts like this too


I've always thought so.


This is an incredible thought! Very smart :)


You totally could have googled this before posting.


I like to have mine facing me


The way to remember is ‘boys are leftover’.


Or so you look like a cross-dresser in the mirror? Sexy.


No, if they were thinking about what women want from men, women's clothes wouldn't have buttons.


I thought it was so you could zip your jackets together and make one giant jacket. Great for smooching and keeping warm!


How do plain wrong "shower thoughts" get upvoted so much? The reason women's clothes are buttoned differently is because upperclass women had maids do up their buttons and since most people are right handed it was easier to put the buttons on the right side from the maids perspective


Shower thoughts aren't meant to be right, otherwise they'd be TIL.


This is bullshit. My girl was wearing ripped jeans with THREE buttons and a zipper. Still got em off.


holy fuck TIL


actually it's the opposite, it's so women can get dressed easily.


ITT OP discovers gendered clothing




I always thought there were set sides, like guys on the right girls on the left, but then I got a jacket for Christmas that has the zipper on the lady side, but its specifically a men's jacket, not advertised even as unisex lol So my whole world was a lie


Wealthy people used to be dressed by others… maybe that has something to do with it 🤷🏼‍♀️


I think you're misunderstanding. If the buttons on men's and women's clothes were both meant to be taken off by someone else that's facing you, the buttons should be on the wearer's left for both. That's how they are for women's clothes now. If the man's clothes were also made to be taken off by a partner it should be the same.


Wait what? How does the reversal make that easier?


Ngl I didn’t even know that they were reversed


I thought it had to do with being right handed and dueling back in the day.


Wait? Seriously? I had no idea womens clothes were buttoned differently.