A word is perhaps in order here on the subject of the return of the long, ankle-length dress. We note, incidentally, it has not “caught on” with women at large. But, with those women who are attracted to it, what might be their motivations? Presumably it is not simply a mindless reflex response to fashion dictates. The women who wear them are presumably no more simplistic than those who do not. Similarly, although there is a theory that men are more interested in what they cannot see than in what they can see (a theory perhaps invented by a sexually nervous woman with bad legs or a distracted homosexual dress designer attempting to justify fashion change), it seems probable that the reasons lie elsewhere. For example, if it were really true that men were more interested in what they could not see than in what they could see, one supposes they would go about wearing blinkers and sunglasses, or else that the girls, catching on, would bundle themselves up in large black sacks with periscopes. This is not the case, of course. Men can, and do, like long, lovely dresses on girls, but this is not so much because it conceals the girl from them as it is because it enhances her loveliness. Girls can be beautiful so adorned. The advantage of the dress is not that it conceals an ankle, thus driving a male mad with curiosity, but that it makes her appear beautiful. Evening dresses, for example, are often beautiful. No one claims they are attractive because they conceal girls. They are attractive because they look beautiful on them.