Chapter 3 covers a tertiary effect the sexual stimulation brought on by the (more or less) concealment of the genital areas. The author believes this to be the principal cause for the well-known fact that humans are the most erotic of animals. The result of naive attempts to reduce the sexuality of primitives by forcing them to wear clothes has often been the opposite! Thus, there came to be two kinds and usages of clothing (1) that for work, designed to inhibit desire and (2) that for leisure which nicely balances decency versus seduction. The author has a fine point here: the girl who wears a perfectly modest evening dress to work is suspected, and rightly, of not having her mind on her job while one who wore to work a suit fully acceptable on the beach would cause a panic in the office. This aspect, like all others, is beautifully illustrated pictorially. And then, there are children's clothes, which say "hands off” even more plainly than adults' work clothes . . . .

Chapter 4 is where we get down to business. He starts off "Why do man and women's clothes differ?" and develops a few explanations, only to dump them in favor of his obviously pet theory. This is that "the differentiation arose from the male's desire to assert superiority over the female and hold her in his service." He makes a good case for this, and in support musters many (illustrated) examples of restrictive feminine clothing. Hobble skirts (from 10,000 BC to 1955 AD), Chinese foot-binding, Champiny (chapin or chopine) shoes like stilts, heavy anklets of up to two pounds and total ornaments weighing up to fifty pounds, veils and side-saddles are shown. Exceptions to the rule that "it pays to hobble women" are found mainly in nomadic or agricultural tribes.

The author had the courage to experiment, and encourages others to do likewise! But, "by his own fireside. . .let him not go out on the streets where he may be committing a misdemeanor," he warns. "See if you do not experience a feeling of embarrassment and restraint," he says. Well, men DO differ in regard to embarrassment! The restraint seems to have come from his intitial choice of a tight skirt (Mrs. Langner's?), but further tests with "a very full skirt" brought no comfort, as it felt "like a large textile bag or tent." If he only knew what WE go through to get that sensation! He should count himself lucky, though, not to have learned just how ADDICTIVE it can be. . .He adds that women, if they are truthful, agree that long