On the dress in question (http://www.alreadypretty.com/2.....tment.html), the photo caption calls it is a tunic, like rabbit thought. Sally is wearing leggings as well, as opposed to tights. This might be another good idea for a spinoff thread...are tunics allowed to be shorter than skirts, even if leggings are worn with both?

I know for myself, leggings are not pants. And I wouldn't be comfortable with it. Skinny jeans, yes.

well, she may be right for herself, but this is certainly not a rule that can be generalized across body types. my thighs are average in the front (for my height), but short in the back after the booty is accounted for. i was shocked that she would consider something shorter than what she shows here to be more flattering as it would be wholly indecent on my body.

Never mind. Filter engaged.

I really was just kidding about the filter, MaryK! I do appreciate your input. :^) I apologize if I came across as upset. Sometimes writing things doesn't have the same effect as saying them!

At the risk of going against the grain, I think mid-thigh for myself and many others *is* flattering. Mid-thigh can be the slimmest part of the thigh, whereas the area right above the knee makes my leg lines look like an inverted trapezoid. I'd sacrifice shape over leg line, but that's me.

In Paris, the average skirt length is mid-thigh, if not shorter, and often worn with dark pantyhose/tights. Women ride bikes with tiny skirts and nobody bats an eye on whether their underpants are exposed. The difference is that there, the short length is entirely socially acceptable, and in the US and Canada, it is not. Consider how the notion that it's inappropriate for 25+ or 30+ women depends on latent views that short skirts, when push comes to shove, are still not considered acceptable for the average woman. I find arguments that women are too old to show X amount of skin to be perilously close to arguments that women who are fatter than X shouldn't wear Y.

I agree with MaryK. Uncomfortable with skirts that short, and risk of flashing people.

Agreeing with gradfashionista. I wear lots of mid-thigh items and so do most of my favourite celebs (over 30). I wear biker shorts under them.

I agree with everything rabbit said and I also agree with Mary K about not wanting to flash anybody.
Maybe it depends on height, leg proportions etc, but mid-thigh on me is nowhere near the danger zone of showing my underwear.
I'm 5'10" with long thighs and mid-thigh is a good 10 inches below my crotch.
I also have no problem with a tunic and leggings (in a casual setting) as long as the leggings are substantial enough.
I have a problem with "age-appropriate" per se. I think it's more important if the outfit looks good / appropriate on the wearer for the situation, rather than basing appropriateness solely on the chronological age of the wearer.

OK, I'm coming back to answer the original question. I think that mid-thigh length of skirt is fine aesthetically. I personally do not wear my skirts that short but this is because I have hangups about always getting mistaken for younger than my age. But objectively I think it's flattering, especially on someone of her proportions, as it shows off her long legs. Sally posted her measurements on her site once and they're actually really similar to mine. She (and I) have very long legs for our heights, so mid-thigh is not at all close to flasher-length. On me that would probably be a 16-18" skirt.

I think the tunic+leggings look is fine too. Her crotch and butt are covered and the leggings look pretty opaque. Again, I personally would probably wear jeans but it's more about my personal style and style goals.

I think Sally looks just fine in both outfits, though I wouldn't say they are her best looks. And I agree it's something to do with proportions, not age appropriateness. I say this because my college-aged daughters routinely wear skirts/dresses this length & shape and while entirely age appropriate, I don't care for the look on them either. I think at the knee length, or just slightly above, flatters both of them much more.

As for me, somewhere in storage I still have two mid-length pencil skirts, these are my version of mini-skirts. I rarely wear them. Most recently I wore one for a halloween costume 3 years ago. My problem with minis is that my rear has slid over the years. And I recently let go of a satin formal dress that had A-line skirt that hit at mid-thigh. It used to be a favorite but when I tried it on recently I did very much feel like I looked like a middle aged woman wearing a doll's dress. But then again maybe it's also my eye that's changed, i.e., grown accustomed to midi lengths. Who knows.

Haha. This has turned into a discussion of, as Mo puts it, the age-skirt-length-police.

For the record, I wear short skirts, and I'm 41. I don't wear them when I want to look sophisticated, though. I also don't wear ones as short as the one Sally's wearing that MaryK linked to. I agree that that one's a long tunic, although with the very heavy tights and boots she's wearing, I don't think she looks indecent. As to age appropriateness -- well, that's a matter of opinion, as the comments demonstrate!

Gigi, I just realized I didn't answer part of your question. Yes, absolutely, the type of skirt makes a difference. A super-short, flippy a-line skirt has a much greater potential to look silly (and cause inadvertent flashing of the lady parts) than a structured straight one! I don't know if the shape of the skirt has an effect on the golden rule though. I guess it might.

As to Sally's comment about mid-thigh skirts messing with the golden rule or something -- I don't think she can make a generalization about that. Sure, that hem length may muck with her proportions, but it probably doesn't muck with yours. Sally's thighs are much fuller than her calves, so that each leg forms an inverted cone shape. I can see how cutting them off halfway up the thigh would be less flattering on her. You, on the other hand, describe yourself as a short, slender gamine. Sounds like your legs are made for mid-thigh mini skirts.

I also don't totally trust Sally's judgment when it comes to proportions and figure flattery, so I'd take what she says with a grain of salt.

I think if your body shape works with shorter skirts, then you should definitely try it -- mine on the other hand absolutely does not. I have muscular thighs + a shapely behind...I cannot wear anything above the knee if it's flouncy at all. Because of my shape, skirts in the back do not rest flat against the back of my legs, I have a huge skirt gap, and they are really quite drafty, and the first tiny breeze (or brisk walk) will send my skirt flipping up, and me over to the fashion confessionals post! Biker shorts don't like me either (I won't bore you with my stories of how they make sausage legs when they roll up when I walk!).

Anything above my knee creeps back up my thighs like crazy. I bought a full skirt the other day online and I'm praying it's as long as they say it is. If it doesn't come below my knees in front AND in back, I'm going to be so sad!

I follow Sally, but I must say, she wears all lengths, and I think her tights make it more acceptable. The gray one would be definitely a tunic on me...and not with tights either, with some skinny jeans or something.