I must be a prude

As I was leaving the gym locker room this afternoon, I noticed a woman adjusting her bra in the mirror. I didn't think anything of it until she passed me in the lobby and went outside wearing just the 'bra' and running shorts.

What's the difference between a bra that you wear under your clothes and a garment that you can wear in public as clothing? Here is what led me to believe that this woman's breast-covering attire was of the 'under your clothes' variety:

1. The garment was white
   
2. The garment had FLIMSY adjustable straps
   
3. The front of the garment accentuated cup like shapes (unlike most sports bras which are typically one seamless piece of knit fabric across (and severely confinging) the breast area.
   

The only things that convinced me that the garment MIGHT have been intended as actual, publically wearable, clothing was that there was no rear or front hooking closure. That and the fact that the fabric was heavy enough in the front that you could not make out the outline of her areolas. Though, oddly enough, you could see the garment's tag through the fabric of the back of the item.

Admittedly, many women wear such items out in public all the time. Some wear even less substantial bikini tops. Even if I had the body for it, I could not imagine wearing something so revealing.

Later in the afternoon, I was in a department store and thought I would see if there were any sales in the women's clothing department that appealed to me. I have noticed a trend in women's fashions towards diaphanous fabrics and extremely short skirts. Again, I cannot imagine even in my wildest fancies EVER going out in public in such attire.

A few years ago, I bought a lovely red sweater which had a mingled pattern of opaque and slightly diaphanous material. I've worn it once. When we were going someplace that I knew would be dimly lit, and I had on a bra that was close in color to the fabric.

See. Prude!