I don't find it an age thing -- I just have unattractive knees. Yeah, all the running and cycling in the world doesn't give me gorgeous legs, oh well. I prefer to cover my legs from knee up because of cellulite, etc, but sometimes I just give no $&@%s and wear shorts anyway because it's too hot to care. I'd like to get to where I don't care about how my legs look at all (I bare my similarly not-fab upper arms), but I guess my old hang-up about my legs is harder to get over.

For me, besides having not-so-great knees and thighs, there is something about my proportions that makes above-the-knee skirts look weirdly non-proportional. I don't quite know why (thick + long legs + short torso make minis look shorter?), but even if the shape of my legs magically changed, it might still be that longer skirts/dresses still looked better on me.

However, I see lots of fabbers of all ages who look better in hemlines a few inches above the knee than they do in longer hemlines.

I did not think that the Vince dress looked too short on Suz because of her age. She looks great in the dress, regardless of the above the knee length!

I thought the dress looked a little short for two reasons: 1) to me, the shorter length of the dress is not as current or modern as a knee-length or longer dress, and 2) because the style is kind of a sack-type, I thought the short length gave it less of an elegant type of vibe - which is what I'd be hoping for if I were to wear the dress. But, I recognize that not everyone has the same style or style aspirations and that's OK.

I have noticed that I am usually in the minority when a fabber posts an outfit and asks for feedback about length of a skirt/dress. A lot of the feedback goes along the lines of 'of course you can wear a short skirt you have great legs!' When to me it doesn't matter if you have great legs or not - it's more about whether or not the length looks current/modern or dated/stuck in another decade.

And as for the looks of knees - I've never known a woman, who as she ages, doesn't eventually develop the "sagging knee syndrome" - and in my eye, it's just not all that attractive! My legs used to be one of my best physical assets - but alas, inspite of the fact that my legs are still quite thin and shapely - the skin on my knees sag! It's called gravity - and so I am happy that the length of skirts/dresses has gone down in the last couple of years. I can wear dresses and look current and stylish - and no one has to know about my sagging knees!

For me it's all about proportion. My legs are relatively short from knee to ankle, so, ideally, I need a higher heeled shoe and/or a slightly shorter skirt to avoid the stumpy look. To be honest though, I usually circumvent the problem by wearing jeans and trousers most of the time.

I don't think it's necessarily an age issue - each woman has to use her own discretion as to what looks appropriate - but thoughtful styling will be needed to look current and stylish as opposed to mutton-dressed-as-lamb. It can be fine line to tread after a certain age (and, no, I have no idea exactly what that age is either!).

I never really worried about my knees until now. Maybe I should give them the once over. (kidding)

I recently saw a picture of myself with a group and realized that I have awful knees. It took this for me to notice... I had never seen it in the mirror for some reason.

I am leggy as well- all limbs and short waisted so dresses tend to fall shorter.

I actually cut some of my short dresses shorter - for some reason I had 4 petite sheath dresses... that I realize are too short, and because I love the color and shape I am going to use them as tunics. I finished one and I am happy with it... the pefect tunic length ! Ha !

But I think you are right. People have different knees. I saw a 68 year old woman on the beach who came over to speak to me... and I actually noticed her knees ... they were great ! So I think there is something genetic there as well and I may be one of the unfortunate ones.

On the length of Suz's dress... well it is fine. I like her striped skirt better but this length is important and is part of the dress shape and color- which looks fantastic on her. With this particular dress... I don't think it would as great longer.. or as current- it is a large part of what makes this dress work.

At 56, I don't show my midriff and my arms worry me but I wear sleeveless ALL the time. I know they are not great... but I am willing to live with it and hope that I have a redeeming feature to balance it out. LOL .

First, I'm so happy I live in a country where women's bodies and dress are *less* regulated than many -- one of the many political rights I don't take for granted!

So no matter the age, I have to support the right to bare arms.

[And legs, shoulders, Daisy Duke not-quite-clad buttcheeks etc. Obviously various U.S. subcultures, religious and otherwise, don't all agree with me.]

Having had a serious chronic health issue resolved (knock wood) via surgery this winter, I'm even more carpe diem for everyone re dressing and more aware of alterations in my personal landscape, ha.

For the record, I liked where the Vince dress hit on Suz but who knows, I might have liked it more shorter/longer!

So as not to feel too constrained by what's in style -- and to save money -- I wear lots of different hemlines throughout a season (or week!). Due to leg shape I think mid-kneecap *or* mid-thigh is most flattering, but with the latter 99.8% of the time leggings or pants are involved.

In the last 2 years I crossed over into firm "mid-40s" territory -- some WIWs below illustrate my typical skirt/dress lengths. For me it basically comes down to preference and proportions....

********

• Photo 1: 2015 NAS silk shift dress, solo and layered over knit pencil
• Photo 2-3: 2015 NAS black ponte sheath, with 2013 purchases where I had hems lowered *and* a neckline changed from crew to V [net modesty = 0?]; Vix Paper Doll/standard work hems
• Photo 4: When getting dressed up, I like some skin in the game (wedding reception; shawled and hosed for a church wedding; permutations of my Sparkle Barbie black sequin minidress)
• Photo 5: Below the knee and beyond
• Photo 6: Showing I can do all covered up
• Photo 7: Results of encouraging an-over 65 bride in my family to tart it up for her daytime church wedding -- a full-length dress with deep Vs front and back plus a slit to the knee. Bonus of her evening dress, which hit about knee-length.

Kyle said "I like my legs, but going too short does not align with who I am right now."

Rachel said: "I don't think it's the knees. I think it's the clothes."

Their comments pretty much sum it up for me. It's not about ugly knees or age as much as I just think a slightly longer length feels more elegant with better proportions. In fact, just at the top of the knee is where I've worn dressy and work skirts/dresses for years. That said, my casual skirts and shorts have historically been shorter.

For example, I often think the Duchess of Cambridge wears her hems too short. Why? It has nothing to do with age. A slightly longer hem looks more elegant in the structured settings where she's most often photographed, and the proportions look better on her. In picture #1, I feel the proportions of the coatdress is off, even though she's wearing tights and boots. In #2, she looks fresh and youthful, but just a bit more polished. But hey, take a look at pic #3. Whoa nelly, I love this. But it's a more formal dress in a party setting.

There are too many variables to consider! FWIW, I love Suz's dress and the length on her, partially due to the style. For a tight bandage dress? Not as much.

P.S, Vix, your pictures are fabulous. Love them.

Actually, I do think baring body parts like knees, cleavage, shoulders, and midriffs IS connected to age BUT NOT in the sense of rules like " avoid above-the-knee skirts past 40".

As we get older, hopefully we gain more understanding as to when displaying certain body parts might be inappropriate for the event or situation. Our perfect, knee-baring, cleavage-showing, "date night" black dress just doesn't work for a funeral so we opt for a more sedate knee-length navy skirt. As well, as we get older, we also gain a better sense of what flatters or what works against us. Proportionally, skirts slightly above my knees work better for my long torsoed, short-legged body but I'll decide when and where my aging, bumpy knees need to be covered with tights or pants. I've never been very concerned about cleavage, and, as a matter of fact, enjoy showing a touch of it in my evening wear, so I'll continue to show a flash of a lacy bra in my tuxedo suit for years to come. It suits my style, makes me feel feminine and sexy at 65, and, most importantly, I have the attitude and self-confidence to pull it off. Plus, my husband adores it.

That's why arbitrary rules don't work--we need to use our own judgement and personal comfort to determine what is too short or when something is too baring.

I think about it in terms of proportions. Some styles - like voluminous sack dresses - look better when you bare your knee-cap, and especially when you wear flats. The raised hemline adds structure to the former and lengthens the leg line for the latter.

To my eye, nothing can compare to the elegance of a longer hemline - that means knee-covering midi. Shorter hemlines can look as killer, but they aren't nearly as elegant.

I wear sack dresses, and keep those knee-baring. Have to for structure and flat footwear. But I strive to look elegant so I prefer to cover my knees when wearing other styles of skirts and dresses.

I loved Suz in that dress right away, and had no issue with the bare knees.

Eh, I wear pretty short stuff and probably get a lot of silent side eye from members of the forum. But I have noticed my lifestyle and the people I run with are probably very different. I do adjust based on the context.
I remember once as a teenager at the river there was a woman in a swimsuit that had a large rectangular section taken out of most her anterior thigh on one leg. At first I was a bit shocked, but then realized it she should not have to cover up to be out and about.
Also aside to Staysfit, I do not understand you not liking quad definition above the knee, especially when you seem to take such pride in your fitness. The last two years I haven't been able to hike much, I miss my quads.

Interesting discussion here. Each to their own. I know what I like and what suits me, and know when to be more conservative.

We are all fortunate if we have a choice to dress our body as we like without the constraints some women face.

Wow, this discussion took off! I love all the perspectives here and "kneed" to think about it all more. I totally get dressing for proportions and for elegance (although I think that's a subjective term to a degree). All I'm saying is that I personally have never ONCE looked at a knee-baring outfit and thought, "Good heavens, woman, cover those sagging, wrinkly, scarred, dimpled knees!" And I think I like it that way.

And, Anna, Staysfit's feelings about HER knees are why we all get to make our own call on what body parts we choose to expose or cover. Angie loves the elegance of a midi skirt, but, on my leg, that length is probably the most unflattering option I could choose. My eye sees a lower leg that looks heavy and shapeless which does not make me FEEL elegant.

Vix, I want your POSTURE!

I never really think about that either. I think about what looks good on me and what I like and is appropriate to me. I like skirts right above the knee in general.

The truth is that if I worried about showing my legs, I would only wear pants and maxis. I am bowl legged and bruise MASSIVELY easy. And I don't care. : ) Though if the bruises are big, I do put some concealer on because OTHER people freak out. : ) But my knees and flabby arms are part of me and the aging processes...they are real....and authentic. I won't hide them simply for the reason of getting older or saggier.

I've been thinking about this thread and don't think there should be "rules" because everyone is different. Each will reach the decision to bare or not to bare on their own and at different times. A time or situation will come when you will know.
My legs are still good but i no longer feel right in anything that is thigh length. I have a shorter friend that is my age who still wears Bermuda shorts or even shorter. They look proportional on her and not at all sexy or revealing.
I have seen quite elderly women on the beach in very skimpy bikinis. At first it was a shock but then I thought, " why not?" On a beach it seemed ok but probably not at the city swimming pool.

I feel fine with my knees showing and don't give it much thought but I guess if I find later in life they don't look so great to me maybe I'd want to cover them at times when I'm trying to really look my best to others. But I'm holding on to (and wearing) my above knee shorts, and bikinis for now.

As far as what looks best to my eye - I think it can depend greatly on where the hemline falls above the knee and how the thigh is shaped where that hemline falls. If it falls at the widest part of the lower thigh it may not look quite as good to me as if it falls at the slightly more narrow part of the lower thigh. So a difference of just one or two inches can really change the look to me.

I'm with Angie, in that my knee-detector/inspector is more about the lines of the dress than about age. Still I know it is somehow personal, maybe, in terms of the "lines" I find most pleasing. It is similar to the rules of thirds, but not exactly. Things like the proportions of bodice to skirt, and where the waist falls and the type of fabric.

I say that because I see young women wearing dresses at certain short lengths and to me it looks like the dress got chopped off before it wanted to be, even though the gal may be young and gorgeous, legs and all. What I think of as the Little Orphan Annie or Shirley Temple look. Sometimes just an inch or so longer would look more elegant, in my book.
Less often, but sometimes, a dress is too long and I feel it "wants" to be a bit shorter, for movement or to not overwhelm or something. You might see this occasionally for cultural or religious issues where the dress is long, and if I were to wear a long dress, I'd wear a different style. Or a dress or skirt that should be hemmed to fit the individual .

I see no age related issue with baring whatever you like. For me, it's about context. What is appropriate for the occasion, so to speak. Knee baring is part of that equation, and the length of a skirt for work is different than a funeral, is different than date night.

Hey Una - in response to your statement about how you've never looked at a knee-baring outfit and thought good heavens woman, cover those saggy, wrinkly, etc. knees! - Take a look at these images I especially collected for you.

Marley, you crack me up! I guess I'll just be grateful for the condition of my knees inside and out.

Una - I have not had a chance to read through all the posts but I almost choked on my tea when I saw Marley's pictures!! Marley they need to truly come with a warning box!! For me hemlines are about proportion, style of dress, supporting pieces. I'm in my mid 50's, 5'3", I'm a rectangle with a flat chest and am long from ankle to knee. I've been told I have very good legs and I don't have any of that saggy, wrinkly stuff - sorry Marley but gravity has not hit yet. Since I wear very low heels or flats - shift dresses are most flattering on my body 2-3 inches above the knee. The hem balances my proportions and gives me a long elegant leg line. A fitted sheath dress looks best just above the knee. Midi's are tough when you are short. I have one and it needs a heel, a significant heel, to give me the same elegant leg line and since I'm currently having a foot issue it's just not as practical, versatile or comfortable. I do always wear tights and leggings for day or sheer black or nude hose for evening wear with dresses. Everyone can wear what they lilke and I applaude that but nothing, imho, gives more polish and refinement than legwear. Proportion, preference, age, body image etc - they all make us comfortable in certain styles and hemlines. How could there ever be a rule that would work for everyone? I think the trick is feeling confident, stylish, comfortable and appropriate for the situation - if those factors are in place than only your opinion really matters.

I've been thinking about this because on Suz's post I commented that I would prefer that the dress be a bit longer FOR ME. It's not about the knees per se, but more about how much of the leg above the knee we want to show. For a casual summer dress or skirt, I am fine with them hitting a couple of inches above the knee. For a dressier dress and for work looks, I want them to hit just above to just below the knee. Being short myself, hems that hit just above are a bit more flattering and a midi length is definitely challenging.

I think that bare legs vs tights/hose makes a difference too, and I would want more coverage with bare legs.

And as others have said- and was mentioned on that post too- the setting/event makes a difference too...too short for a funeral might be just right for date night!

Uh, my knees look worse than a few of Marley's photos. How on earth do I dare wear shorts or even a swimsuit without subjecting poor innocent eyes from the horror?

Janet, I know -- right? Besides, lots of those knees look damn good to me.

Let's face it: knees and elbows are inherently weird looking (even on babies!), but they have to be to do their job. Can't stretch the skin too tight as you gotta be able to bend 'em!.

Everyone I know who's injured either appreciates them a lot more when they've started recovering, that's for sure!

People have different priorities at different times and looking great or looking "young" isn't always their first!

No one is going to truly conceal their age form me with hair dye, cosmetic surgery, clothing, etc. because my categories are pretty vague, baby, very young, young, older, still young, and older.

Whenever I catch myself criticizing someone else's appearance my next thoughts are .." what is wrong with you that you have time to think mean thoughts about something so trivial, imagining that you can make some kind of assessment about someone by their clothing, and watch out, because that judgmental eye you're turning on someone else is the same you use on yourself."

My knees could fit right into that gallery of horrors too. At least if shot in an unflattering light from an unfriendly angle. Or--gasp-- in close up!!! Also unlike gryffin and Vix I am cursed with short calves (and am relatively short to begin with). But I'm keeping that dress anyway and will wear without hose in summer. While my knees may not be my prettiest feature and my legs are rather short, they are otherwise strong and fit, and my skin is unblemished apart from the odd bug bite. So I'll wear with hose or leggings in cooler weather and bare legs in warmer weather and I won't wear to the board room, a funeral, or a meeting with the cruel press!!

Hahaha! Oh my god Marley - this looks like the cover of the National Enquirer! You made my day

Thanks Marley - glad to see my knees aren't on there! However, I used to not care too much about the knees until I had replacement surgery (yes, on both!) and the scars, while natural and show my surgeon's skill, are still not anything I really like showing any more. Especially when people make comments and ask "what happened!?!?" I just as soon wear a longish skirt, dress or tights or pants that cover the scars. There are plenty of styles out there to cover and still stay current.

How did I miss Marley's knee gallery?! Mine show the wrinkling and crepey skin right on top of the kneecap when I am standing straight. Bending the knees tightens everything up but one can't go around with constantly bent knees. I agree with Gryffin that leg wear smooths and is a great solution. I feel many years younger in very sheer stockings.