No, That Color Only Is for Women

The world of men’s fashion has a host of disadvantages, as if there are only very few brands, shops, dress designs but among those most upset is the limitation of the range of colors When you go to buy something. After a while doubting what color choose a particular model comes turn dependent and you loose coldly: & #8220;No, that color is only for women.“

The reason for such a response not understand it ever, how being in 2009 and with the strong men’s fashion market and generating as much revenue, colors are still limited to the sexes. In a footwear such as the Victoria that there are many colors and designs, are why he continues by? limit the size up to some number, leaving excluded men?

I personally happened to go to several stores. Ask for a model that I’ve seen a colorful color and they tell you: “ is not, only for women ”. On the basis that the shoe is unisex when it comes to the notion of doing only women?

It is better that there are certain pairs that are clearly intended for women, but in the victory of life, which are not committed to special designs and do a single colour which tends to be very basic, the distinction between an audience and the other is ridiculous.

I’m talking about two specific colors: one Blue and a green pistachio very soft. Two colors that they are in any garment, it either male and female (the first resembles the second image of Mango). On the other hand, in Victoria do not pass certain number (think the 40) because supposedly not glued to see them in a man.

Apparently the right thing is to choose the black, Navy Blue, red, etc. Monotonous colors coming not from the classical line, while some more animated are discarded. It seems to me a full error by House Victoria, used on this occasion to the example because it’s the last that I have lived, but nonetheless the only brand that makes it.