Re: Things we remember...
Lynn Calvin
wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:37:26 -0800 (PST), Matt Hughes
><arch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 4 Nov, 19:28, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:57:35 +0000, Don Aitken <don-ait...@freeuk.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> >The Hollies are an interesting case of a band name being forgotten
>>> >while some of its members and of its songs are much better remembered.
>>> >I'm sure you would recognise "The Air That I Breathe" stright away.
>>>
>>> No, this is Dorothy. �She wouldn't.
>>
>>But she would have recognized those damn girdles they all wore before
>>pantyhose arrived You think getting a bra off was tricky?
>
>I remember my mother wearing those things. I'm trying to remember
>whether my older sisters ever had any; I think not. My younger
>sisters definitely didn't.
The technology to make inexpensive pantyhose came along just before it
became an issue for me - girdles (and garter belts except for decorative
purposes) became obsolete in the late 60s.
--
Lynn Calvin
lca...@interaccess.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Lynn Calvin <lca...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:48:22 -0500, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:37:26 -0800 (PST), Matt Hughes
>><arch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 4 Nov, 19:28, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:57:35 +0000, Don Aitken <don-ait...@freeuk.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >The Hollies are an interesting case of a band name being forgotten
>>>> >while some of its members and of its songs are much better remembered.
>>>> >I'm sure you would recognise "The Air That I Breathe" stright away.
>>>>
>>>> No, this is Dorothy. �She wouldn't.
Nope, this is Dorothy and I don't.
But there was a Holly who died in a plane crash, was there not?
Some large number of years later someone on misc.writing posted
that she was all depressed because this was the anniversary of
the day the music died, and I said, What are you talking about?
and my dears, she blew up in my virtual face, how could I be so
cruel and unfeeling?
Many many explanations later it turned out that she had had an
aunt who had used "I don't know what you're talking about" for
"your tastes are crude and vulgar." Apologies all round and
someone provided a link to the American Pie lyrics which then
required a whole 'nother set of explanations.
>>>But she would have recognized those damn girdles they all wore before
>>>pantyhose arrived You think getting a bra off was tricky?
Oh yes, I wore them for years. I never had trouble getting them
off, nor a bra either ... but then I never felt the need to get
them off at a moment's notice.
>>
>>I remember my mother wearing those things. I'm trying to remember
>>whether my older sisters ever had any; I think not. My younger
>>sisters definitely didn't.
>
>The technology to make inexpensive pantyhose came along just before it
>became an issue for me - girdles (and garter belts except for decorative
>purposes) became obsolete in the late 60s.
I can remember wearing one in the early 1960s and not later, so
your memory must be correct. I never wore one for decorative
purposes and my mind boggles at the concept, but I married in
1971 and before that I lived alone in every sense of the word.
So (looking over this post, which has taken me about fifteen
minutes to type one-handed), was "The Air I Breathe" about taking
one's girdle off?
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Wayne Throop
:::: while some of its members and of its songs are much better
:::: remembered. I'm sure you would recognise "The Air That I Breathe"
:::: stright away.
: djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
: So [...], was "The Air I Breathe" about taking one's girdle off?
Well, only in the sense that any song mentioning sex might be considered so.
And that it dates from 1974, just about when (or perhaps somewhat after)
girdles became unfashionable except for certain decorative purposes.
Though I suspect most people's impression of the song isn't related
to the mention of sex, more agape than eros. I guess. I suppose.
Sometimes, all I need is the air that I breathe, and to love you.
--- The Air That I Breathe
Oh, and it's "The Air **That** I Breaths". Wikipedia sez
"not to be confused with "The Air I Breathe".
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Kurt Busiek
> In article <2rh8i5pvdg7d8ihf8...@4ax.com>,
> Lynn Calvin <lca...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:48:22 -0500, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:37:26 -0800 (PST), Matt Hughes
>>> <arch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4 Nov, 19:28, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:57:35 +0000, Don Aitken <don-ait...@freeuk.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The Hollies are an interesting case of a band name being forgotten
>>>>>> while some of its members and of its songs are much better remembered.
>>>>>> I'm sure you would recognise "The Air That I Breathe" stright away.
>
> But there was a Holly who died in a plane crash, was there not?
Yes and no.
Buddy Holly died in a plane crash in 1959. He was a rock & roll singer
from Texas.
He was not a member of The Hollies, though the group was named for him.
The Hollies were (and are, I suppose, since they're still around) a
British rock group, formed a few years after Buddy Holly's death.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com — for all your Busiek needs!
David DeLaney
>: djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>: So [...], was "The Air I Breathe" about taking one's girdle off?
>
>Well, only in the sense that any song mentioning sex might be considered so.
>And that it dates from 1974, just about when (or perhaps somewhat after)
>girdles became unfashionable except for certain decorative purposes.
>
>Though I suspect most people's impression of the song isn't related
>to the mention of sex, more agape than eros. I guess. I suppose.
kd lang's cover of it pretty much oooooozes eros. It is worth listening to.
Dave 'reinterpretations ya ig' DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
cryptoguy
> In article <2rh8i5pvdg7d8ihf86k3oe5u119csq8...@4ax.com>,
> Lynn Calvin <lcal...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:48:22 -0500, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:37:26 -0800 (PST), Matt Hughes
[...]
> >>>But she would have recognized those damn girdles they all wore before
> >>>pantyhose arrived You think getting a bra off was tricky?
>
> Oh yes, I wore them for years. I never had trouble getting them
> off, nor a bra either ... but then I never felt the need to get
> them off at a moment's notice.
Gotta untangle those attributions Dorothy! The line about the
difficulty of getting a bra off came from Matt Hughes. While Matt is
clearly a gentleman of sophisticated and catholic tastes, I don't
think he was referring to taking his own bra off. :-)
pt
Dorothy J Heydt
No, I don't think so either. He was talking about getting some
female person's bra off her, as a prelude to some activity or
other. Indeed, there have been occasions when a female would put
on assorted forms of underwear solely in order for her male
companion to have the experience of taking them off her. I just
never went in for that form of wrapping/unwrapping.
cryptoguy
> In article <684e284a-9ad7-4e27-89e5-3b7d35e15...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 12, 11:14 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> >> In article <2rh8i5pvdg7d8ihf86k3oe5u119csq8...@4ax.com>,
> >> Lynn Calvin <lcal...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:48:22 -0500, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
> >> >wrote:
>
> >> >>On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:37:26 -0800 (PST), Matt Hughes
> >> >><archon...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >[...]
> >> >>>But she would have recognized those damn girdles they all wore before
> >> >>>pantyhose arrived You think getting a bra off was tricky?
>
> >> Oh yes, I wore them for years. I never had trouble getting them
> >> off, nor a bra either ... but then I never felt the need to get
> >> them off at a moment's notice.
>
> >Gotta untangle those attributions Dorothy! The line about the
> >difficulty of getting a bra off came from Matt Hughes. While Matt is
> >clearly a gentleman of sophisticated and catholic tastes, I don't
> >think he was referring to taking his own bra off. :-)
>
> No, I don't think so either. He was talking about getting some
> female person's bra off her, as a prelude to some activity or
> other. Indeed, there have been occasions when a female would put
> on assorted forms of underwear solely in order for her male
> companion to have the experience of taking them off her. I just
> never went in for that form of wrapping/unwrapping.
That's right. However, for a young man to deal with one of a variety
of unfamiliar fastening mechanisms, one handed, out of sight, in
cramped surroundings, when the wearer, while not unwilling, is not
necessarily actively assisting in the unfastening, can be an exercise
in frustration.
pt
Robert Bannister
And it's amazing how quickly it happened - in other clothing/fashion
areas, there are always some people very slow to change, but with
pantyhose, almost all women adopted them - it seemed - overnight.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> No, I don't think so either. He was talking about getting some
> female person's bra off her, as a prelude to some activity or
> other. Indeed, there have been occasions when a female would put
> on assorted forms of underwear solely in order for her male
> companion to have the experience of taking them off her. I just
> never went in for that form of wrapping/unwrapping.
>
On the other hand, it does seem that much of women's apparel was
designed to be put on and taken off by a servant and that modern,
servant-less women have to learn special dexterity skills to overcome
this. Any man who has had a woman live in for more than a few days would
be accustomed to "Can you do this hook up?", "Zip this zip up for me", etc.
--
Rob Bannister
Dorothy J Heydt
Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
>> No, I don't think so either. He was talking about getting some
>> female person's bra off her, as a prelude to some activity or
>> other. Indeed, there have been occasions when a female would put
>> on assorted forms of underwear solely in order for her male
>> companion to have the experience of taking them off her. I just
>> never went in for that form of wrapping/unwrapping.
>
>On the other hand, it does seem that much of women's apparel was
>designed to be put on and taken off by a servant and that modern,
>servant-less women have to learn special dexterity skills to overcome
>this.
Only to a limited extent: the *styles* of clothing changed once
fewer women had personal maids. I never had a maid, and I am
trying in vain to think of any garment I owned that needed such
attention. I did have some sheath dresses that had to be zipped
up in back, but I could zip them up myself; if I couldn't have, I
would never have acquired them (made them, in this case, rather
than bought them). I hooked my own bras behind my back, in early
years (that is, years in which I had already grown boobs but
lacked a husband); much later, when my shoulders became
sufficiently stiff that I could no longer do that, I hooked them
together permanently and wriggled into them. It's only in the
last few days (and a similar few weeks eighteen months ago, back
when I broke the *other* wrist) that I would need help in the
wriggling process -- by which time I'd been married for decades.
But I'm going on my own personal experience, and "anecdote" is NOT
the singular of "data", so we should all beware. It may be that
many other women, even in the US, have clothing that requires another
person's aid to put on. I just can't think of any, except for
the very elderly and disabled. I see occasional catalogs full of
clothing the elderly and disabled can still put on by
themselves, and/or tools to help them put on standard-issue
clothes by themselves.
>Any man who has had a woman live in for more than a few days would
>be accustomed to "Can you do this hook up?", "Zip this zip up for me", etc.
Well, not ANY man, since I've never had to ask my husband to do
such things for me except when my wrist was broken, and we're
coming up on forty years of marriage. But again, "anecdote" is
not the singular of "data" and maybe I just got into the habit
long ago of selecting to make (or, in extreme cases, buy)
clothing that required no one's assistance.
What does everyone else have to say?
Dorothy J Heydt
Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Lynn Calvin wrote:
>>
>> The technology to make inexpensive pantyhose came along just before it
>> became an issue for me - girdles (and garter belts except for decorative
>> purposes) became obsolete in the late 60s.
>
>And it's amazing how quickly it happened - in other clothing/fashion
>areas, there are always some people very slow to change, but with
>pantyhose, almost all women adopted them - it seemed - overnight.
And no damn wonder. I think I can just barely remember keeping a
panty girdle for a year or so after pantyhose came in, because
Hanes was not yet making pantyhose in a particularly sheer fabric
in a shade called Nude, which were (mirabile dictu!) the actual
color of my skin, instead of all tanned and stuff. I wore those
for special occasions, keeping the tanned-colored pantyhose for
every day. (Yes, one wore stockings every day back then. I
cannot not remember exactly why.)
Kurt Busiek
I've been maaried for 21 years, and while the concept of "zip me up" is
familiar to me from TV and movies, the duty is not. I won't say
categorically that I've never had to zip up the back of someone's
dress, but I can't recall doing it.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Wayne Throop
::: be accustomed to "Can you do this hook up?", "Zip this zip up for
::: me", etc.
: I've been maaried for 21 years, and while the concept of "zip me up"
: is familiar to me from TV and movies, the duty is not. I won't say
: categorically that I've never had to zip up the back of someone's
: dress, but I can't recall doing it.
I can recall doing it once or twice. More as a convenience than
a necessity, though. And more often would be "help me fasten this
bracelet", since they can be hard to do one-handed, what with the
teeny-tiny spring-loaded clasps. However,
http://www.amazon.com/Aids-for-Arthritis-Bracelet-Buddy/dp/B0006Z3HMW
I rather imagine similar tools would be quite possible for dress zippers;
attach a clamp and string to the ziipper if nothing else.
Carl Dershem
news:KuMDt...@kithrup.com:
In dozens of years, and a handful of live-in relationships, I've been asked
to do that only once.
cd
--
My life is an open book, and I want a re-write!
Strobe
wrote:
Having distinctly enjoyed the interesting views around Carnaby Street at the
time, I think we can confidently attribute this adoption to Ms M. Quant's
notable invention of the early 60s (the one she named after Sir Alec's auto
invention).
Although I also had a lot of admiration for those participants who instead took
their underpinnings inspiration from Ms G. A. Moran's Tinling outfit from 1949.
Ahh, happy heydays. . .
John F. Eldredge
I have heard of such tools in the past for handling women's dress
zippers. I wear a medical ID bracelet, and use needle-nose pliers to
hold one end of the chain while hooking the clasp into place.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
I've been asked to do the zip bit more than once.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Um, you are being so coy in your language that I can only hope
I'm guessing correctly that "mini" is the word you have in mind.
>
>Although I also had a lot of admiration for those participants who instead took
>their underpinnings inspiration from Ms G. A. Moran's Tinling outfit from 1949.
What?
Google leads me to a page that seems to be all about tennis, from
which I can make a wild guess that maybe you're talking about a
short tennis dress. But there are no pictures. I wish you would
say what you mean.
>
>Ahh, happy heydays. . .
Ah, total obfuscation. What ARE you going on about?
erilar
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <7ole70F...@mid.individual.net>,
> Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >On the other hand, it does seem that much of women's apparel was
> >designed to be put on and taken off by a servant and that modern,
> >servant-less women have to learn special dexterity skills to overcome
> >this.
>
> Only to a limited extent: the *styles* of clothing changed once
> fewer women had personal maids. I never had a maid, and I am
> trying in vain to think of any garment I owned that needed such
> attention. I did have some sheath dresses that had to be zipped
> up in back, but I could zip them up myself; if I couldn't have, I
> would never have acquired them (made them, in this case, rather
> than bought them). I hooked my own bras behind my back, in early
> years (that is, years in which I had already grown boobs but
> lacked a husband); much later, when my shoulders became
> sufficiently stiff that I could no longer do that, I hooked them
> together permanently and wriggled into them.
I never thought of that! When I was really hurting with
tendonitis in both upper arms not long ago, there were days when I
hooked one in front and wriggled it around, though.
> >Any man who has had a woman live in for more than a few days would
> >be accustomed to "Can you do this hook up?", "Zip this zip up for me", etc.
Back when there was one around, I don't recall ever needing help to get
into clothing.
>
> Well, not ANY man, since I've never had to ask my husband to do
> such things for me except when my wrist was broken, and we're
> coming up on forty years of marriage. But again, "anecdote" is
> not the singular of "data" and maybe I just got into the habit
> long ago of selecting to make (or, in extreme cases, buy)
> clothing that required no one's assistance.
>
> What does everyone else have to say?
The only clothing I have with zippers nowadays are jackets or other
outer clothing. Everything else stretches.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
erilar
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> (Yes, one wore stockings every day back then. I
> cannot not remember exactly why.)
Well, around here they were a bit warmer than bare legs, back when I
wore skirts.
netcat
dra...@chibardun.net.invalid says...
> In article <KuMDt...@kithrup.com>,
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
> > In article <7ole70F...@mid.individual.net>,
> > Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > >On the other hand, it does seem that much of women's apparel was
> > >designed to be put on and taken off by a servant and that modern,
> > >servant-less women have to learn special dexterity skills to overcome
> > >this.
> >
> > Only to a limited extent: the *styles* of clothing changed once
> > fewer women had personal maids. I never had a maid, and I am
> > trying in vain to think of any garment I owned that needed such
> > attention. I did have some sheath dresses that had to be zipped
> > up in back, but I could zip them up myself; if I couldn't have, I
> > would never have acquired them (made them, in this case, rather
> > than bought them). I hooked my own bras behind my back, in early
> > years (that is, years in which I had already grown boobs but
> > lacked a husband); much later, when my shoulders became
> > sufficiently stiff that I could no longer do that, I hooked them
> > together permanently and wriggled into them.
> I never thought of that! When I was really hurting with
> tendonitis in both upper arms not long ago, there were days when I
> hooked one in front and wriggled it around, though.
There are front closing ones now. My mother swears by them.
> > What does everyone else have to say?
>
> The only clothing I have with zippers nowadays are jackets or other
> outer clothing. Everything else stretches.
Lots of my clothing has zippers. I like zippers. But they're all on the
front. Except possibly a few pairs of pants where it's on the side.
rgds,
netcat
Cheryl
> In article <KuMDt...@kithrup.com>,
<snip>
>> What does everyone else have to say?
>
> The only clothing I have with zippers nowadays are jackets or other
> outer clothing. Everything else stretches.
I've never owned clothing that I needed help to get into. I fastened
bras in the front and twisted them into position from the beginning; now
I like front-closing models. If I have anything with a zip up the back
(actually, I don't think I do), or make anything that calls for a zip up
the back, it usually fits loosely enough that I don't bother unzipping
it, or don't put the zip in if I make it. My mother had a kind of hook
on a string that she could hook on a back zip and pull it up if my
father or one of us weren't around, but I've never owned or need one,
and I don't think she owns a dress or skirt these days; she wears slacks
and loose tops that just pull on. They're *nice* ones - she's far better
at making sure they match or coordinate than I am - but they're very
easy to get into and out of.
--
Cheryl
Dorothy J Heydt
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>In article <KuMDt...@kithrup.com>,
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>> In article <7ole70F...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> >On the other hand, it does seem that much of women's apparel was
>> >designed to be put on and taken off by a servant and that modern,
>> >servant-less women have to learn special dexterity skills to overcome
>> >this.
>>
>> Only to a limited extent: the *styles* of clothing changed once
>> fewer women had personal maids. I never had a maid, and I am
>> trying in vain to think of any garment I owned that needed such
>> attention. I did have some sheath dresses that had to be zipped
>> up in back, but I could zip them up myself; if I couldn't have, I
>> would never have acquired them (made them, in this case, rather
>> than bought them). I hooked my own bras behind my back, in early
>> years (that is, years in which I had already grown boobs but
>> lacked a husband); much later, when my shoulders became
>> sufficiently stiff that I could no longer do that, I hooked them
>> together permanently and wriggled into them.
> I never thought of that! When I was really hurting with
>tendonitis in both upper arms not long ago, there were days when I
>hooked one in front and wriggled it around, though.
Well, we may have had different disorders. I was able to raise
my hands over my head, but not to bring them together behind my
back at chest level *and* manipulate the hooks.
>
>> >Any man who has had a woman live in for more than a few days would
>> >be accustomed to "Can you do this hook up?", "Zip this zip up for me", etc.
>
>Back when there was one around, I don't recall ever needing help to get
>into clothing.
>>
>> Well, not ANY man, since I've never had to ask my husband to do
>> such things for me except when my wrist was broken, and we're
>> coming up on forty years of marriage. But again, "anecdote" is
>> not the singular of "data" and maybe I just got into the habit
>> long ago of selecting to make (or, in extreme cases, buy)
>> clothing that required no one's assistance.
>>
>> What does everyone else have to say?
>
>The only clothing I have with zippers nowadays are jackets or other
>outer clothing. Everything else stretches.
I still have the man around, who would be willing to do any kind
of necessary fastening, and at present would have to tug the bra
down over my head/arms/torso if I were going to wear one at all.
Since I broke the wrist last Tuesday evening I haven't attempted
to wear one: just a loose T-shirt and a loose sweater.
Meanwhile, I'm healing, I guess; I have some movement in the
fingers of my left hand and I'm able to take the brace off and
rub the skin underneath, all swollen and bruised and itchy.
Dorothy J Heydt
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>In article <KuME6...@kithrup.com>,
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>> (Yes, one wore stockings every day back then. I
>> cannot not remember exactly why.)
>
>Well, around here they were a bit warmer than bare legs, back when I
>wore skirts.
I never thought of that -- but remember, I lived in California
and still do. I wore stretchy tights for situations where I wore
a skirt but wanted to be warm and could be informal. I now have
a pair of warm fuzzy leg-warmers that can go under a skirt (and,
if necessary, removed in the ladies' room once I get inside the
building) or, for that matter, under a pair of pants.
It's not just styles that change, but also one's physiology. I'm
more sensitive to heat and cold than I used to be.
"Michal Dwuznik (Michał Dwużnik)"
>
> It's not just styles that change, but also one's physiology. I'm
> more sensitive to heat and cold than I used to be.
>
As my mother stated "I distinguish between the two different ambient
temperatures: 'too cold' and 'too hot'"...
Michal
PS:I tend to call some garments "military sized" - too small or too large...
Dorothy J Heydt
Michal Dwuznik (Micha� Dwużnik) <"michal[dot]dwuznik[at]cern[dot]ch"@think.a.bit.before.replying> wrote:
>Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>
>> It's not just styles that change, but also one's physiology. I'm
>> more sensitive to heat and cold than I used to be.
>>
>
>As my mother stated "I distinguish between the two different ambient
>temperatures: 'too cold' and 'too hot'"...
She would be about my age, right?
>
>PS:I tend to call some garments "military sized" - too small or too large...
I'm past that: nothing is too large. If it hangs about me in
folds, that's just comfortable.
erilar
"Michal Dwuznik (Micha©© Dwu˝nik)"
wrote:
> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
For "a bit chilly" I add a layer. My problem is that most people's
"comfortable" is well into my "too warm" range and their "a bit warm" is
my "too hot". Taking this into account, I have to, if I have enough
advance notice, make a deliberate to get my house closer to "too warm"
so they can take off jackets. . .
erilar
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> Meanwhile, I'm healing, I guess; I have some movement in the
> fingers of my left hand and I'm able to take the brace off and
> rub the skin underneath, all swollen and bruised and itchy.
Oh, these modern inventions are so nice that way. About a hundred years
ago(well, fifty) when I broke a minor bone in my foot(the only one I
know the name of: 5th metatarsal), they put a cast up to my knee and I
could only scratch inside it with a long pencil. I hope yours settles
down and heals nicely!
Juho Julkunen
Ik1pY2hhbCBEd3V6bmlrIChNaWNoYcWCIER3dcW8bmlrKSI=?= (=?UTF-8?B?
Ik1pY2hhbCBEd3V6bmlrIChNaWNoYcWCIER3dcW8bmlrKSI=?= <"michal[dot]dwuznik
[at]cern[dot]ch"@think.a.bit.before.replying>) says...
Now look here: military issue clothes are never the wrong size; the one
wearing them may be, and often is.
--
Juho Julkunen
Dorothy J Heydt
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>In article <KunCI...@kithrup.com>,
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>> Meanwhile, I'm healing, I guess; I have some movement in the
>> fingers of my left hand and I'm able to take the brace off and
>> rub the skin underneath, all swollen and bruised and itchy.
>
>Oh, these modern inventions are so nice that way. About a hundred years
>ago(well, fifty) when I broke a minor bone in my foot(the only one I
>know the name of: 5th metatarsal), they put a cast up to my knee and I
>could only scratch inside it with a long pencil. I hope yours settles
>down and heals nicely!
Thanks. It seems to be. I've gotten to the point where I can
type two-handed if I'm very careful and don't do it for too long.
And rub repeated coats of lotion into the skin. I get the
impression this break is not as bad as the previous one -- not
displaced, and the orthopod got turned loose on it less than
forty-eight hours after the break, rather than most of a week.
Still, I'm getting positively paranoid about the thought of
falling again and breaking anything else. I've inherited a nice
walker with lots of bells and whistles from my late sister-in-law
and once I'm in a position to go out again and can lean on it
with both hands, I'm going to use it.
"Michal Dwuznik (Michał Dwużnik)"
>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> It's not just styles that change, but also one's physiology. I'm
>>> more sensitive to heat and cold than I used to be.
>>>
>> As my mother stated "I distinguish between the two different ambient
>> temperatures: 'too cold' and 'too hot'"...
>
> She would be about my age, right?
About.
>> PS:I tend to call some garments "military sized" - too small or too large...
>
> I'm past that: nothing is too large. If it hangs about me in
> folds, that's just comfortable.
>
Shoes/boots may be too large (causing blisters etc.), trousers may be
(causing stumbling or indecency depending on the dimension being too
large...), sleeves may be too long (causing embarassing food accidents
as well as less embarassing but more dangerous work accidents...). Yes,
garments may be too large in my book. The pants which move after the
gangsta inside has taken no less than three steps count as too large, too.
Michal
"Michal Dwuznik (Michał Dwużnik)"
>>
>> PS:I tend to call some garments "military sized" - too small or too large...
>
> Now look here: military issue clothes are never the wrong size; the one
> wearing them may be, and often is.
>
I'm a civilian sometimes wearing military clothing, I dare to consider
the clothing wrong.
Michal
Michael Stemper
>In article <2rh8i5pvdg7d8ihf8...@4ax.com>, Lynn Calvin <lca...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:48:22 -0500, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>>>> >The Hollies are an interesting case of a band name being forgotten
>>>>> >while some of its members and of its songs are much better remembered.
>>>>> >I'm sure you would recognise "The Air That I Breathe" stright away.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, this is Dorothy. �She wouldn't.
>
>Nope, this is Dorothy and I don't.
>
>But there was a Holly who died in a plane crash, was there not?
>Some large number of years later someone on misc.writing posted
>that she was all depressed because this was the anniversary of
>the day the music died,
That was Buddy Holly, and it happened well before the formation
of the band named "The Hollies".
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
Wayne Throop
: There are front closing ones now. My mother swears by them.
Um, "now"? There were front-closing bras by 1980 at least,
and probably before that, but I wasn't cognizant of such things.
Hm. A quick google finds mention of front-clasp corsets and girdles
in 1940, and front-clasp bras in 1965. I would have thought they
would have existed earlier than that.
Dorothy J Heydt
>: netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee>
>: There are front closing ones now. My mother swears by them.
>
>Um, "now"? There were front-closing bras by 1980 at least,
>and probably before that, but I wasn't cognizant of such things.
>
>Hm. A quick google finds mention of front-clasp corsets and girdles
>in 1940, and front-clasp bras in 1965. I would have thought they
>would have existed earlier than that.
I vaguely remember front-clasp bras in the 1950s (before I was
wearing bras of any kind). I think they existed but weren't
common.
Strobe
The mini (skirt) - of course.
Mary Quant was fond of her Mini (car) designed by Alec Issigonis.
I was being a _little_ coy - but only because I'd imagined that absolutely
everyone would know what Mary Quant and Carnaby St were famous for.
>>Although I also had a lot of admiration for those participants who instead took
>>their underpinnings inspiration from Ms G. A. Moran's Tinling outfit from 1949.
>
>What?
>
>Google leads me to a page that seems to be all about tennis, from
>which I can make a wild guess that maybe you're talking about a
>short tennis dress. But there are no pictures. I wish you would
>say what you mean.
All tennis dresses were short by then.
Gorgeous Gussie became world famous for wearing frilly panties under a tennis
outfit at Wimbledon - that event made the cover of Life. Teddy Tinling, who
designed it, was banned from Wimbledon clothing for years (Wiki).
>>Ahh, happy heydays. . .
>
>Ah, total obfuscation. What ARE you going on about?
The adoption of the miniskirt by nearly every young woman, at a time when
pantyhose were not available - of course.
The usual underwear of the time was designed NOT to be seen - yet when sitting
down in a train or bus, the mini gave a girl no choice but to show her knickers
and stocking tops.
There was a LOT of individual improvisation and innovation (some of it highly
imaginative) going on as girls strove to stay 'decent' while obeying the
imperative to be fashionable.
Some girls would even refuse a seat on a crowded train rather than show their
underwear. Others took the opposite approach and chose the frilly underwear
that was designed to be seen, together with theatrical tights. Or with regular
stockings and the then equivalent of Victoria's Secret style garter belts,
designed to be seen (and to look sexy).
Then, along came pantyhose and solved the dilemma.
That era made my daily commute memorable - and was essential early training
for my current career as a Dirty Old Man.
Incidentally, my technical training also impelled me (and, allegedly, Howard
Hughes) to take an interest in the engineering of bras.
I never, ever understood why the fastener was not always in the front.
Robert Bannister
> In article <12608...@sheol.org>, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>> : netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee>
>> : There are front closing ones now. My mother swears by them.
>>
>> Um, "now"? There were front-closing bras by 1980 at least,
>> and probably before that, but I wasn't cognizant of such things.
>>
>> Hm. A quick google finds mention of front-clasp corsets and girdles
>> in 1940, and front-clasp bras in 1965. I would have thought they
>> would have existed earlier than that.
>
> I vaguely remember front-clasp bras in the 1950s (before I was
> wearing bras of any kind). I think they existed but weren't
> common.
>
I have this vague idea that, for some strange reason, they were
considered naughty, rather than convenient. However, your answers and
others confirm my belief that women have learned (or had to learn) extra
dexterity skills - obviously suited to be mages in RPGs.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> In article <7oldtiF...@mid.individual.net>,
> Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> Lynn Calvin wrote:
>>> The technology to make inexpensive pantyhose came along just before it
>>> became an issue for me - girdles (and garter belts except for decorative
>>> purposes) became obsolete in the late 60s.
>> And it's amazing how quickly it happened - in other clothing/fashion
>> areas, there are always some people very slow to change, but with
>> pantyhose, almost all women adopted them - it seemed - overnight.
>
> panty girdle for a year or so after pantyhose came in, because
> Hanes was not yet making pantyhose in a particularly sheer fabric
> in a shade called Nude, which were (mirabile dictu!) the actual
> color of my skin, instead of all tanned and stuff. I wore those
> for special occasions, keeping the tanned-colored pantyhose for
> every day. (Yes, one wore stockings every day back then. I
> cannot not remember exactly why.)
>
>
Same reason men wore ties and (somewhat earlier) hats.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> In article <hg5jc4$up0$2...@news.onet.pl>,
> Michal Dwuznik (Micha� Dwużnik) <"michal[dot]dwuznik[at]cern[dot]ch"@think.a.bit.before.replying> wrote:
>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> It's not just styles that change, but also one's physiology. I'm
>>> more sensitive to heat and cold than I used to be.
>>>
>> As my mother stated "I distinguish between the two different ambient
>> temperatures: 'too cold' and 'too hot'"...
>
> She would be about my age, right?
My mum's 98 and those two temperatures above are the only ones she
knows. She wears cardigans when I'm sweating and then wants the air-con
on and is too cold again within minutes. It really is no fun getting
older - I'm not quite 70 yet, but I wish I hadn't started on the aging
thing at all - it's not what it is was cracked up to be when I was 12.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> That era made my daily commute memorable - and was essential early training
> for my current career as a Dirty Old Man.
That was the time when I almost gave up on a DOM career, because the
girls who wore the shortest skirts were almost always those with the
fattest thighs - not a pretty sight.
Today's minis are interesting: I think they must be just as short, but
somehow they have managed to make them less revealing - I don't know
whether it's the cut or the materials.
--
Rob Bannister
Dorothy J Heydt
Everyone who was at least old enough to read -- and be
interested in -- the news from Britain in the 1960s. That's a
while back, friend.
>>>Although I also had a lot of admiration for those participants who
>instead took
>>>their underpinnings inspiration from Ms G. A. Moran's Tinling outfit
>from 1949.
>>
>>What?
>>
>>Google leads me to a page that seems to be all about tennis, from
>>which I can make a wild guess that maybe you're talking about a
>>short tennis dress. But there are no pictures. I wish you would
>>say what you mean.
>
>All tennis dresses were short by then.
>Gorgeous Gussie became world famous for wearing frilly panties under a tennis
>outfit at Wimbledon - that event made the cover of Life. Teddy Tinling, who
>designed it, was banned from Wimbledon clothing for years (Wiki).
Yeah. See, I was born in 1942 and I did know about Mini dresses
on Carnaby street, though just barely. I heard about Mini cars
only through the works of Flanders and Swann.
>
>>>Ahh, happy heydays. . .
>>
>>Ah, total obfuscation. What ARE you going on about?
>
>The adoption of the miniskirt by nearly every young woman, at a time when
>pantyhose were not available - of course.
>
>The usual underwear of the time was designed NOT to be seen - yet when sitting
>down in a train or bus, the mini gave a girl no choice but to show her knickers
>and stocking tops.
>There was a LOT of individual improvisation and innovation (some of it highly
>imaginative) going on as girls strove to stay 'decent' while obeying the
>imperative to be fashionable.
>Some girls would even refuse a seat on a crowded train rather than show their
>underwear. Others took the opposite approach and chose the frilly underwear
>that was designed to be seen, together with theatrical tights. Or with regular
>stockings and the then equivalent of Victoria's Secret style garter belts,
>designed to be seen (and to look sexy).
>
>Then, along came pantyhose and solved the dilemma.
>
>That era made my daily commute memorable - and was essential early training
>for my current career as a Dirty Old Man.
Do please realize that this process that amused you so much
earned you the undying hatred of a good many young women who were
too polite to express it.
>
>Incidentally, my technical training also impelled me (and, allegedly, Howard
>Hughes) to take an interest in the engineering of bras.
>I never, ever understood why the fastener was not always in the front.
Because it might show under a thin dress or sweater?
I suppose you're familiar with the classical _California
Engineer_ article, "The Stress Analysis of a Strapless Evening
Gown"?
Dorothy J Heydt
Yup. That ill-defined reason that boiled down to "you're
supposed to."
Kurt Busiek
> In article <03cdi5t6d9hkqc02g...@4ax.com>,
> Strobe <Str...@nyc.Beep!Beep!.com> wrote:
>> All tennis dresses were short by then.
>> Gorgeous Gussie became world famous for wearing frilly panties under a tennis
>> outfit at Wimbledon - that event made the cover of Life. Teddy Tinling, who
>> designed it, was banned from Wimbledon clothing for years (Wiki).
>
> Yeah. See, I was born in 1942 and I did know about Mini dresses
> on Carnaby street, though just barely. I heard about Mini cars
> only through the works of Flanders and Swann.
I learned what a "boot" was, too, in British usage, trying to figure
out what that line meant.
Just a couple of years ago, I ran across a reference to Sir Charles
Clore, and got another of their jokes...
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
cryptoguy
> In article <03cdi5t6d9hkqc02gu6lqcqiqf15g2d...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Strobe <Str...@nyc.Beep!Beep!.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 03:54:03 GMT, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
> >>In article <me9bi5948q9bch0pheukkgtrvea3e9t...@4ax.com>,
> >>Strobe <Str...@nyc.Beep!Beep!.com> wrote:
> >>>On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:07:14 +0800, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com>
Please understand that it goes both ways; the man who invented
pantyhose has, in literature, been condemned to the lowest circle of
hell a number of times....
pt
Dorothy J Heydt
cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Please understand that it goes both ways; the man who invented
>pantyhose has, in literature, been condemned to the lowest circle of
>hell a number of times....
On ecaxtly what grounds? That pantyhose got rid of garter belts
etcetera? That it was preferable in the eyes of the people you
refer to, that women should be imprisoned in low-level torture
devices so that men could have the lascivious fun of thinking
about them being tortured?
Dimensional Traveler
> In article <03cdi5t6d9hkqc02g...@4ax.com>,
> Strobe <Str...@nyc.Beep!Beep!.com> wrote:
<snip lots of dirty remembrances about mini-skirts.>
>>
>> That era made my daily commute memorable - and was essential early training
>> for my current career as a Dirty Old Man.
>
> Do please realize that this process that amused you so much
> earned you the undying hatred of a good many young women who were
> too polite to express it.
Somehow, I suspect it doesn't care.
>> Incidentally, my technical training also impelled me (and, allegedly, Howard
>> Hughes) to take an interest in the engineering of bras.
>> I never, ever understood why the fastener was not always in the front.
>
> Because it might show under a thin dress or sweater?
>
> I suppose you're familiar with the classical _California
> Engineer_ article, "The Stress Analysis of a Strapless Evening
> Gown"?
>
Sounds like a perfect example of how important materials science is and
all the spin-offs we get from it. :D
--
"Dude. They've gone fractal."
Howard Brazee
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Today's minis are interesting: I think they must be just as short, but
>somehow they have managed to make them less revealing - I don't know
>whether it's the cut or the materials.
Or maybe it's the observer who changed.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
erilar
wrote:
> There were front-closing bras by 1980 at least,
> and probably before that, but I wasn't cognizant of such things.
Actually, there were front-clasp bras a long time ago for nursing
mothers. . .
erilar
mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
> In article <KuKp3...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> writes:
> >In article <2rh8i5pvdg7d8ihf8...@4ax.com>, Lynn Calvin
> ><lca...@interaccess.com> wrote:
> >>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:48:22 -0500, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>>> >The Hollies are an interesting case of a band name being forgotten
> >>>>> >while some of its members and of its songs are much better remembered.
> >>>>> >I'm sure you would recognise "The Air That I Breathe" stright away.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, this is Dorothy. �She wouldn't.
> >
> >Nope, this is Dorothy and I don't.
> >
> >But there was a Holly who died in a plane crash, was there not?
> >Some large number of years later someone on misc.writing posted
> >that she was all depressed because this was the anniversary of
> >the day the music died,
>
> That was Buddy Holly, and it happened well before the formation
> of the band named "The Hollies".
OK, and here's an odd one for you. I remembered the plane crash because
the Big Bopper was in it, not because of Buddy Holly. This is odd,
because that was never my music of choice. I had heard and noticed the
former because I like really low voices and I happened to be listening
to my usual NPR station when the crash made the news.
Kurt Busiek
NPR was created in 1970. The plane crash was in 1959.
Some earlier form of public radio, perhaps?
Joy Beeson
wrote:
> I never, ever understood why the fastener was not always in the front.
That's partly because mass-market bras have to be adjustable.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
cryptoguy
> In article <301ebd5c-0981-456a-85ce-4d7e7f8fc...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Please understand that it goes both ways; the man who invented
> >pantyhose has, in literature, been condemned to the lowest circle of
> >hell a number of times....
>
> On ecaxtly what grounds? That pantyhose got rid of garter belts
> etcetera? That it was preferable in the eyes of the people you
> refer to, that women should be imprisoned in low-level torture
> devices so that men could have the lascivious fun of thinking
> about them being tortured?
I don't think sadism had any part in it. Rather, it was the making of
a target of desire much, much less accessible. I don't think most men
had any consciousness that the old tech was uncomfortable, much less
thought that it being uncomfortable was a good thing.
pt
Dorothy J Heydt
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>In article <12608...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
>wrote:
>
>> There were front-closing bras by 1980 at least,
>> and probably before that, but I wasn't cognizant of such things.
>
>Actually, there were front-clasp bras a long time ago for nursing
>mothers. . .
I'm going to assume you're right on that, though I never saw one,
but the nursing bras I used back in the day had as it were double
cups. The straps made a framework around the boob, and the
central part of the cup unhooked from the top to reveal the
business end of the nipple. It wasn't necessary to unfasten the
entire bra from around the body -- and, since one was already
juggling the baby with at least one arm, and (in my case) using
the other hand to point the nipple in the appropriate direction,
it would've been difficult to get the bra fastened on again.
Dorothy J Heydt
Hm. Maybe not. Would you like to expand on "making a target of
desire much less accessible"? Which was the target of desire,
the female or the underwear? Are we veering into Piers Anthony
territory, in which going about starkers is perfectly ordinary
but the color of a pair of underwear can be concealed, smirked
over, and giggled about for the length of an entire book?
Garrett Wollman
Erilar, as I recall, lives in Wisconsin. WHA (970 Madison) has been
around since at least 1921. WHA-FM (88.7 Madison, now WERN) signed on
in 1947, and by 1959 already had satellites in Chilton (WHKW 89.3),
Colfax (WHWC 88.3), Delafield (WHAD 90.7), Highland (WHHI 91.3),
Highland Township (WHHA 89.9), Holmen (WHLA 90.3), and Wausau (WHRM
91.9), all of which today are part of Wisconsin Public Radio (in some
cases with different cities of license).
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
I only know about it because of the Don McLean song, which I heard at
Cafe Lena before it became a megahit (I was just a boy at the time, but
my parents were folkies and used to go to Lena on occasion).
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Wayne Throop
: Hm. Maybe not. Would you like to expand on "making a target of
: desire much less accessible"? Which was the target of desire,
: the female or the underwear?
The female. I expect he's alleging that it's more difficult to
disentangle pantyhose from said target than panties and/or previous
supplementary undergarments, especially in teenage-stereotypical groping
scenarios. And/or that partial disrobing is less practical with pantyhose.
Dorothy J Heydt
>: Hm. Maybe not. Would you like to expand on "making a target of
>: desire much less accessible"? Which was the target of desire,
>: the female or the underwear?
>
>The female. I expect he's alleging that it's more difficult to
>disentangle pantyhose from said target than panties and/or previous
>supplementary undergarments, especially in teenage-stereotypical groping
>scenarios. And/or that partial disrobing is less practical with pantyhose.
Hm. Interesting, because it was a heck of a lot easier for the
female herself to take off pantyhose, than either to get all the
way out of a panty girdle or to tug a pair of ordinary underpants
out from under a garter belt. I never engaged in any teenaged
stereotypical groping scenarios, but one had to go to the ladies'
room on a regular basis. Believe me: pantyhose just peeled off
and, one's business completed, skooshed back up again.
I wonder if these teenaged stereotypical groping scenarios took
place in the male teenager's head, not in reality? Certainly the
fellow upthread, reminiscing about his development into a Dirty
Old Man, seemed to find the complex accourtrements a lot more
interesting than the female herself, in spite of what you say
above.
Kurt Busiek
> In article <hg702p$seo$1...@solani.org>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-12-14 19:28:03 -0800, erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> said:
>
>>> OK, and here's an odd one for you. I remembered the plane crash because
>>> the Big Bopper was in it, not because of Buddy Holly. This is odd,
>>> because that was never my music of choice. I had heard and noticed the
>>> former because I like really low voices and I happened to be listening
>>> to my usual NPR station when the crash made the news.
>>
>> NPR was created in 1970. The plane crash was in 1959.
>>
>> Some earlier form of public radio, perhaps?
>
> Erilar, as I recall, lives in Wisconsin. WHA (970 Madison) has been
> around since at least 1921. WHA-FM (88.7 Madison, now WERN) signed on
> in 1947, and by 1959 already had satellites in Chilton (WHKW 89.3),
> Colfax (WHWC 88.3), Delafield (WHAD 90.7), Highland (WHHI 91.3),
> Highland Township (WHHA 89.9), Holmen (WHLA 90.3), and Wausau (WHRM
> 91.9), all of which today are part of Wisconsin Public Radio (in some
> cases with different cities of license).
Some earlier form of public radio, then, as surmised.
It wasn't NPR, because it didn't exist yet.
Cheryl
<snip>
>
> Incidentally, my technical training also impelled me (and, allegedly, Howard
> Hughes) to take an interest in the engineering of bras.
> I never, ever understood why the fastener was not always in the front.
I think possibly because you can get more definition and separation of
the breasts if the fastening is in the back.
There was a time when a fashionable woman wore a bra designed to hold
her breasts up, pointy, and clearly separated, like twin missiles
pointed forward. You can't get that effect with a front fastener.
--
Cheryl
Cheryl
> In article <301ebd5c-0981-456a...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Please understand that it goes both ways; the man who invented
>> pantyhose has, in literature, been condemned to the lowest circle of
>> hell a number of times....
>
> On ecaxtly what grounds? That pantyhose got rid of garter belts
> etcetera? That it was preferable in the eyes of the people you
> refer to, that women should be imprisoned in low-level torture
> devices so that men could have the lascivious fun of thinking
> about them being tortured?
>
I always thought because they rarely fit properly - binding at the waist
and drooping at the crotch - made you sweat in summer and freeze in
winter, got runs as soon as you brought a toe near them (and therefore
had to be put on and removed with extreme caution) and cost money.
Sometimes a lot of money, since the cheap ones fit even worse. But the
expensive ones could be even more fragile and susceptible to snags.
Slacks, that's the way to go. With optional loose dresses or skirts if
your summers get too hot for slacks. Or shorts, of course, but I don't
find them as cool as shorts or slacks.
--
Cheryl
Cheryl
> In article <12608...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> wrote:
>
>> There were front-closing bras by 1980 at least,
>> and probably before that, but I wasn't cognizant of such things.
>
> Actually, there were front-clasp bras a long time ago for nursing
> mothers. . .
>
The ones my mother had weren't front clasp, exactly. The, I suppose
you'd call it the frame, stayed put and was fastened in back, but the
cups unhooked and could be pulled down.
My mother was considered a little odd because she breast-fed three out
of her four children - all modern women back then used bottles and
formula, or Carnation milk if they couldn't afford formula.
--
Cheryl
Cheryl
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:06:26 -0500, Strobe <Str...@nyc.Beep!Beep!.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I never, ever understood why the fastener was not always in the front.
>
> That's partly because mass-market bras have to be adjustable.
>
Although you can get front fasteners with two rows of hooks....but there
are more adjustments possible with a back fastening to be sure.
--
Cheryl
Howard Brazee
>My mother was considered a little odd because she breast-fed three out
>of her four children - all modern women back then used bottles and
>formula, or Carnation milk if they couldn't afford formula.
When was this?
My younger siblings were born between 1952-1964, and I don't remember
it being odd that they were nursed (obviously I don't remember
responses to my nursing or my older sister's (who died before I was
born).
All of us were born in California, although we moved to Maryland
immediately when my kid sister was born.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>: djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>: Hm. Maybe not. Would you like to expand on "making a target of
>: desire much less accessible"? Which was the target of desire,
>: the female or the underwear?
>
>The female. I expect he's alleging that it's more difficult to
>disentangle pantyhose from said target than panties and/or previous
>supplementary undergarments, especially in teenage-stereotypical groping
>scenarios. And/or that partial disrobing is less practical with pantyhose.
I never figured out why pantyhose is that much different from tights.
Except that hose is designed to sort of look like you're not wearing
socks at all, but not really.
Cheryl
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:01:12 -0330, Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
>
>> My mother was considered a little odd because she breast-fed three out
>> of her four children - all modern women back then used bottles and
>> formula, or Carnation milk if they couldn't afford formula.
>
> When was this?
>
> My younger siblings were born between 1952-1964, and I don't remember
> it being odd that they were nursed (obviously I don't remember
> responses to my nursing or my older sister's (who died before I was
> born).
>
> All of us were born in California, although we moved to Maryland
> immediately when my kid sister was born.
>
Roughly the same period - 1954-1965 - I, obviously like you, don't
remember my own rearing or that of the sister closest in age to me, but
the two youngest were considerably younger than we were.
Even later than that - the older sister of a friend of mine, in the
nearest city of any size, nursed her two babies who must have been born
in the late 1960s. The doctor she had on one of them, as we used to
phrase it, was writing a paper or book on the benefits of breast-feeding
, and was pleased when this woman decided to breast feed, since most of
her patients didn't.
I suspect the move away from the post-war mania for efficiency and
modernity in child-raising ended somewhat earlier in California than it
did in rural Newfoundland.
--
Cheryl
David DeLaney
>
>My mum's 98 and those two temperatures above are the only ones she
>knows. She wears cardigans when I'm sweating and then wants the air-con
>on and is too cold again within minutes. It really is no fun getting
>older - I'm not quite 70 yet, but I wish I hadn't started on the aging
>thing at all - it's not what it is was cracked up to be when I was 12.
ObSF: "With proper assistance, you might have left off at seven."
Dave "I remind myself every so often that it IS better than the alternative"
DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney
>>Um, you are being so coy in your language that I can only hope
>>I'm guessing correctly that "mini" is the word you have in mind.
>
>The mini (skirt) - of course.
>Mary Quant was fond of her Mini (car) designed by Alec Issigonis.
>I was being a _little_ coy - but only because I'd imagined that absolutely
>everyone would know what Mary Quant and Carnaby St were famous for.
Welcome to Teh Future. Few anymore will remember - but anyone who wants to
can look up the reference like <snaps virtual fingers> THAT.
Dave
David DeLaney
>I suppose you're familiar with the classical _California
>Engineer_ article, "The Stress Analysis of a Strapless Evening Gown"?
I own the book that collects that essay and others. Edited by Robert A. Baker.
David DeLaney
>place in the male teenager's head, not in reality?
As I understand things, nearly ALL of those do. (And yeah, teenage females
get to fill their heads with them too, but I hear there's a lot more
pillow-hugging/kissing involved?)
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Strobe <Str...@nyc.Beep!Beep!.com> wrote:
>>> Um, you are being so coy in your language that I can only hope
>>> I'm guessing correctly that "mini" is the word you have in mind.
>> The mini (skirt) - of course.
>> Mary Quant was fond of her Mini (car) designed by Alec Issigonis.
>
>> I was being a _little_ coy - but only because I'd imagined that absolutely
>> everyone would know what Mary Quant and Carnaby St were famous for.
>
> Welcome to Teh Future. Few anymore will remember - but anyone who wants to
> can look up the reference like <snaps virtual fingers> THAT.
The only Quant I know is Suff!
Cheryl
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:02:56 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> wrote:
>
>> : djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>> : Hm. Maybe not. Would you like to expand on "making a target of
>> : desire much less accessible"? Which was the target of desire,
>> : the female or the underwear?
>>
>> The female. I expect he's alleging that it's more difficult to
>> disentangle pantyhose from said target than panties and/or previous
>> supplementary undergarments, especially in teenage-stereotypical groping
>> scenarios. And/or that partial disrobing is less practical with pantyhose.
>
> I never figured out why pantyhose is that much different from tights.
> Except that hose is designed to sort of look like you're not wearing
> socks at all, but not really.
>
When I grew up, adults didn't wear tights (I wasn't familiar with any
ballerinas). Tights, being sturdy, ugly and warm, are for children.
Pantyhose, being fragile, sexy, and uncomfortable (ie warm in hot
weather and cool in cold weather) are for adults.
In my childhood, almost anything intended for adults was said to be
fragile, have a taste that had to grow on you, expensive, or, said in
repressive tones 'you're too young to understand/need/want/use things
like that'. Pantyhose fits more of those criteria than tights do.
--
Cheryl
Gerry Quinn
> In article <fb819553-67ad-4a5d...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 14, 8:06 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> >> In article
> ><301ebd5c-0981-456a-85ce-4d7e7f8fc...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> >>
> >> cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Please understand that it goes both ways; the man who invented
> >> >pantyhose has, in literature, been condemned to the lowest circle of
> >> >hell a number of times....
> >>
> >> On ecaxtly what grounds? That pantyhose got rid of garter belts
> >> etcetera? That it was preferable in the eyes of the people you
> >> refer to, that women should be imprisoned in low-level torture
> >> devices so that men could have the lascivious fun of thinking
> >> about them being tortured?
> >
> >I don't think sadism had any part in it. Rather, it was the making of
> >a target of desire much, much less accessible. I don't think most men
> >had any consciousness that the old tech was uncomfortable, much less
> >thought that it being uncomfortable was a good thing.
>
> Hm. Maybe not. Would you like to expand on "making a target of
> desire much less accessible"? Which was the target of desire,
> the female or the underwear? Are we veering into Piers Anthony
> territory, in which going about starkers is perfectly ordinary
> but the color of a pair of underwear can be concealed, smirked
> over, and giggled about for the length of an entire book?
Perhaps the problem is that a pair of pantyhose is somewhat reminiscent
of a condom; it places a purposely thin but nevertheless tangible and
synthetic barrier between its contents and the remainder of the
universe.
- Gerry Quinn
Dorothy J Heydt
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:01:12 -0330, Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
>
>>My mother was considered a little odd because she breast-fed three out
>>of her four children - all modern women back then used bottles and
>>formula, or Carnation milk if they couldn't afford formula.
>
>When was this?
>
>My younger siblings were born between 1952-1964, and I don't remember
>it being odd that they were nursed (obviously I don't remember
>responses to my nursing or my older sister's (who died before I was
>born).
My mother nursed me, in 1942. I don't recall (obviously) anyone
remarking on it at the time. But twenty-odd years later I was
going about with a young man who happened to mention the then
popular diet drink Metrecal, complaining that it tasted like baby
formula. I said I wouldn't know, not knowing what baby formula
tasted like. He said, Well, I had merely forgotten what it used
to taste like.
I said No, I had actually never tasted it, my mother had nursed
me. He was HORRIFIED. He was DISGUSTED. He knew what women's
boobs were for, and it wasn't for BABIES. Only one of the many
reasons we broke up shortly thereafter.
Dorothy J Heydt
Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
>Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article
><301ebd5c-0981-456a...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>> cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Please understand that it goes both ways; the man who invented
>>> pantyhose has, in literature, been condemned to the lowest circle of
>>> hell a number of times....
>>
>> On ecaxtly what grounds? That pantyhose got rid of garter belts
>> etcetera? That it was preferable in the eyes of the people you
>> refer to, that women should be imprisoned in low-level torture
>> devices so that men could have the lascivious fun of thinking
>> about them being tortured?
>>
>
>I always thought because they rarely fit properly - binding at the waist
>and drooping at the crotch - made you sweat in summer and freeze in
>winter, got runs as soon as you brought a toe near them (and therefore
>had to be put on and removed with extreme caution) and cost money.
>Sometimes a lot of money, since the cheap ones fit even worse. But the
>expensive ones could be even more fragile and susceptible to snags.
Well, sounds as if your experience was different from mine. As
I've said elsethread, I found pantyhose to be more efficient,
practical, and comfortable than the old-fashioned hose that
required mechanisms with little buttons on to keep them on the
leg.
>
>Slacks, that's the way to go. With optional loose dresses or skirts if
>your summers get too hot for slacks. Or shorts, of course, but I don't
>find them as cool as shorts or slacks.
Well, yeah, but I'm old enough that "slacks = informal" is
permanently engraved on my consciousness. I would never wear
pants of any kind to church, for instance.
Dorothy J Heydt
Heh. I observe (google is one's ally) that you were born in
1962. You would not have been observing the effects of Carnaby
Street on fashion during your tender years.
Cheryl
>> I always thought because they rarely fit properly - binding at the waist
>> and drooping at the crotch - made you sweat in summer and freeze in
>> winter, got runs as soon as you brought a toe near them (and therefore
>> had to be put on and removed with extreme caution) and cost money.
>> Sometimes a lot of money, since the cheap ones fit even worse. But the
>> expensive ones could be even more fragile and susceptible to snags.
>
> Well, sounds as if your experience was different from mine. As
> I've said elsethread, I found pantyhose to be more efficient,
> practical, and comfortable than the old-fashioned hose that
> required mechanisms with little buttons on to keep them on the
> leg.
Oh, yes, they were worse.
>> Slacks, that's the way to go. With optional loose dresses or skirts if
>> your summers get too hot for slacks. Or shorts, of course, but I don't
>> find them as cool as shorts or slacks.
>
> Well, yeah, but I'm old enough that "slacks = informal" is
> permanently engraved on my consciousness. I would never wear
> pants of any kind to church, for instance.
I seem to have abandoned that entirely. I never wear anything other than
slacks at church or anywhere else, unless it's really hot and I have a
skirt or dress. I don't seem to have much of a range in clothing any
more. I find that a relief, really.
--
Cheryl
Dorothy J Heydt
I'm not sure whether you're saying this is a good or a bad thing.
The barrier provided by a condom is a useful thing, so they tell
me. Unless we're talking about a young male whose power-tripping
sexual fantasies are fueled by thoughts of doing harm? "I could
get her PREGNANT! I could RUIN HER LIFE! Bwah ha ha ha!" And
even in the case of very young adult males, whose testicles
stereotypically override their brains for a number of years, this
seems unduly harsh.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
O
Joy Beeson
Heydt) wrote:
> What does everyone else have to say?
I believe I once asked for my husband's help when a hook got caught in
my pigtail.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Strobe
>In article <03cdi5t6d9hkqc02g...@4ax.com>,
>Strobe <Str...@nyc.Beep!Beep!.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 03:54:03 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <me9bi5948q9bch0ph...@4ax.com>,
>>>Strobe <Str...@nyc.Beep!Beep!.com> wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:07:14 +0800, Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Lynn Calvin wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:48:22 -0500, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:37:26 -0800 (PST), Matt Hughes
>>>>>>> <arch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4 Nov, 19:28, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:57:35 +0000, Don Aitken <don-ait...@freeuk.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The Hollies are an interesting case of a band name being forgotten
>>>>>>>>>> while some of its members and of its songs are much better remembered.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure you would recognise "The Air That I Breathe" stright away.
>>>>>>>>> No, this is Dorothy. She wouldn't.
>>>>>>>> But she would have recognized those damn girdles they all wore before
>>>>>>>> pantyhose arrived You think getting a bra off was tricky?
>>>>>>> I remember my mother wearing those things. I'm trying to remember
>>>>>>> whether my older sisters ever had any; I think not. My younger
>>>>>>> sisters definitely didn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The technology to make inexpensive pantyhose came along just before it
>>>>>> became an issue for me - girdles (and garter belts except for decorative
>>>>>> purposes) became obsolete in the late 60s.
>>>>>
>>>>>And it's amazing how quickly it happened - in other clothing/fashion
>>>>>areas, there are always some people very slow to change, but with
>>>>>pantyhose, almost all women adopted them - it seemed - overnight.
>>>>
>>>>Having distinctly enjoyed the interesting views around Carnaby Street at the
>>>>time, I think we can confidently attribute this adoption to Ms M. Quant's
>>>>notable invention of the early 60s (the one she named after Sir Alec's auto
>>>>invention).
>>>
>>>Um, you are being so coy in your language that I can only hope
>>>I'm guessing correctly that "mini" is the word you have in mind.
>>
>>The mini (skirt) - of course.
>>Mary Quant was fond of her Mini (car) designed by Alec Issigonis.
>>
>>I was being a _little_ coy - but only because I'd imagined that absolutely
>>everyone would know what Mary Quant and Carnaby St were famous for.
>
>Everyone who was at least old enough to read -- and be
>interested in -- the news from Britain in the 1960s. That's a
>while back, friend.
>
>>>>Although I also had a lot of admiration for those participants who
>>instead took
>>>>their underpinnings inspiration from Ms G. A. Moran's Tinling outfit
>>from 1949.
>>>
>>>What?
>>>
>>>Google leads me to a page that seems to be all about tennis, from
>>>which I can make a wild guess that maybe you're talking about a
>>>short tennis dress. But there are no pictures. I wish you would
>>>say what you mean.
>>
>>All tennis dresses were short by then.
>>Gorgeous Gussie became world famous for wearing frilly panties under a tennis
>>outfit at Wimbledon - that event made the cover of Life. Teddy Tinling, who
>>designed it, was banned from Wimbledon clothing for years (Wiki).
>
>Yeah. See, I was born in 1942 and I did know about Mini dresses
>on Carnaby street, though just barely. I heard about Mini cars
>only through the works of Flanders and Swann.
>>
>>>>Ahh, happy heydays. . .
>>>
>>>Ah, total obfuscation. What ARE you going on about?
>>
>>The adoption of the miniskirt by nearly every young woman, at a time when
>>pantyhose were not available - of course.
>>
>>The usual underwear of the time was designed NOT to be seen - yet when sitting
>>down in a train or bus, the mini gave a girl no choice but to show her knickers
>>and stocking tops.
>>There was a LOT of individual improvisation and innovation (some of it highly
>>imaginative) going on as girls strove to stay 'decent' while obeying the
>>imperative to be fashionable.
>>Some girls would even refuse a seat on a crowded train rather than show their
>>underwear. Others took the opposite approach and chose the frilly underwear
>>that was designed to be seen, together with theatrical tights. Or with regular
>>stockings and the then equivalent of Victoria's Secret style garter belts,
>>designed to be seen (and to look sexy).
>>
>>Then, along came pantyhose and solved the dilemma.
>>
>>That era made my daily commute memorable - and was essential early training
>>for my current career as a Dirty Old Man.
>
>Do please realize that this process that amused you so much
>earned you the undying hatred of a good many young women who were
>too polite to express it.
I was too busy exchanging smiles with those who chose the frillies and
Victoria's Secret.
>>Incidentally, my technical training also impelled me (and, allegedly, Howard
>>Hughes) to take an interest in the engineering of bras.
>>I never, ever understood why the fastener was not always in the front.
>
>Because it might show under a thin dress or sweater?
A girl flat-chested enough for that fastener to show through clothing need
never fear that anyone is looking at her front.
The visible rear clasp & strap buckles, however, certainly would have detracted
from the delightful curve of her back.
>I suppose you're familiar with the classical _California
>Engineer_ article, "The Stress Analysis of a Strapless Evening
>Gown"?
Over the years I've enjoyed several such papers.
As an engineer, I thank God for inventing hips.
And I still think the traditional bra is an engineering disaster.
I got interested in clothing at school, when I was assigned a term paper on
Elizabeth I's secret police. Women's fashions back then were fairly extreme;
men's were scarcely less so (see Holbein's Henry VIII - note codpiece and
shoes.).
It was those royal foot-shaped shoes that embodied for me the engineering tenet
"Form follows function", something that comforted me as I lived through the era
of needle-toed 'winkle picker' shoes for men. Now retired and needing to
please only myself, I can proudly wear kingly foot-shaped shoes.
And I still enjoy looking at people who dress elegantly AND sensibly.
(It's not as difficult or expensive as the fashionistas want us to think.)
The best lookers are those who have found what suits them and
then stick to it, regardless of fashions whims.
But then, I also enjoy seeing a couple of local ladies who have zero fashion
sense but dress with an exuberance of color and styles that warms the heart.
So, make of it what you will.
Strobe
wrote:
>Please understand that it goes both ways; the man who invented
>pantyhose has, in literature, been condemned to the lowest circle of
>hell a number of times....
Bank robbers pulled on stocking masks to distort their faces and
make them unrecognisable.
Why didn't girls realise they were doing the same thing to their delightful
rear ends?
W. Citoan
But her "usual NPR station" did exist back then even if it wasn't yet an
NPR affiliated station. The meaning was clear and there's a point where
things become too pedantic even for Usenet...
- W. Citoan
--
All things are artificial, for Nature is the art of God.
-- [Sir] Thomas Browne
Kurt Busiek
Ah. No, the meaning wasn't clear to me, but I see it now. Thanks.
Dorothy J Heydt
You're assuming that we *wanted* to display the shape and
consistency of our rear ends to all and sundry. That was the one
good thing about a tight girdle: if some dirty so-and-so had the
effrontery to put his hand on one's behind _en passant_, all he
encountered was something having the approximate shape and rigidity
of a bolster. A small comfort, but better than none. (I never
heard of anyone who was able to conceal a bear trap about her
posterior, but one can dream.)
erilar
Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
I never wear anything but slacks of one kind or another in this century.
I do have some clothing with skirts, but it's all medieval and long
enough to mostly hide my hiking boots. 8-)
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
erilar
> NPR was created in 1970. The plane crash was in 1959.
>
> Some earlier form of public radio, perhaps?
OK, I called it NPR to give it national relevance. What I was listening
to back in the 1950's was actually WPR--Wisconsin Public Radio, which
goes back a long ways, particularly the first station down in Madison.
erilar
wrote:
> It wasn't NPR, because it didn't exist yet.
Gee, I can't help it if it took that long for the rest of the country to
catch up to Wisconsin. . . . 8-)
Brenda Clough
In a RPG my husband was running once, he did allow the characters to get
it on. However, they had to roll the dice: the odds of a pregnancy
with any given act of intercourse is up on the web someplace. Once you
rolled pregnant, then you had to roll for gender, infant survival, and
then (oh horror!) intelligence. If the infant rolled sufficiently
smart, both parents had to start socking the gold pieces away for that
University education. The brutal burden of child support cools desire
amazingly.
Brenda
Brenda Clough
> In article <3cvfi5tu3t7g71k38...@4ax.com>,
> Strobe <Str...@nyc.Beep!Beep!.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:47:20 -0800 (PST), cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Please understand that it goes both ways; the man who invented
>>> pantyhose has, in literature, been condemned to the lowest circle of
>>> hell a number of times....
>> Bank robbers pulled on stocking masks to distort their faces and
>> make them unrecognisable.
>>
>> Why didn't girls realise they were doing the same thing to their delightful
>> rear ends?
>
> You're assuming that we *wanted* to display the shape and
> consistency of our rear ends to all and sundry. That was the one
> good thing about a tight girdle: if some dirty so-and-so had the
> effrontery to put his hand on one's behind _en passant_, all he
> encountered was something having the approximate shape and rigidity
> of a bolster. A small comfort, but better than none. (I never
> heard of anyone who was able to conceal a bear trap about her
> posterior, but one can dream.)
>
That is what knitting needles are for. Nickel-plated steel straights,
for preference.
Brenda
Kurt Busiek
> In article <hg702p$seo$1...@solani.org>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
> wrote:
>
>> NPR was created in 1970. The plane crash was in 1959.
>>
>> Some earlier form of public radio, perhaps?
>
> OK, I called it NPR to give it national relevance. What I was listening
> to back in the 1950's was actually WPR--Wisconsin Public Radio, which
> goes back a long ways, particularly the first station down in Madison.
Thanks, erilar. That's kind of what I was assuming, but it was
apparently taken amiss that I actually asked.
Kurt Busiek
> In article <hg7g3g$n3o$2...@solani.org>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It wasn't NPR, because it didn't exist yet.
>
> Gee, I can't help it if it took that long for the rest of the country to
> catch up to Wisconsin. . . . 8-)
I'd say most of the country still has a ways to go, actually.
My uncle Bill started working at WGBH in Boston two weeks after they
debuted in 1951, and was one of the guys who planned and developed the
National Educational Radio Network, one of the precursors of NPR. The
radio broadcast booth at Boston Symphony Hall is named after him.
He always had good things to say about public radio in Wisconsin.
Dorothy J Heydt
Yabbut you'd need awfully good reflexes to make that work. I do
have some heavy (relatively speaking) hairpins holding my hair in
place, and given a moment's notice I could pull one out and turn
it into an effective claw (better than a set of keys, which have
also been recommended). Still not much good on the guy who has
groped _en passant_ and is now several feet away. All academic
now, when I am old and flabby and don't get groped any more. If
I were still young and knew what I know now, I think I'd pronounce
mysterious curses in medieval Latin and let the jerk worry.
Robert Bannister
> In article <7oo2u3F...@mid.individual.net>,>>> In article <7oldtiF...@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>> Lynn Calvin wrote:
>>>>> The technology to make inexpensive pantyhose came along just before it
>>>>> became an issue for me - girdles (and garter belts except for decorative
>>>>> purposes) became obsolete in the late 60s.
>>>> And it's amazing how quickly it happened - in other clothing/fashion
>>>> areas, there are always some people very slow to change, but with
>>>> pantyhose, almost all women adopted them - it seemed - overnight.
>>> panty girdle for a year or so after pantyhose came in, because
>>> Hanes was not yet making pantyhose in a particularly sheer fabric
>>> in a shade called Nude, which were (mirabile dictu!) the actual
>>> color of my skin, instead of all tanned and stuff. I wore those
>>> for special occasions, keeping the tanned-colored pantyhose for
>>> every day. (Yes, one wore stockings every day back then. I
>>> cannot not remember exactly why.)
>> Same reason men wore ties and (somewhat earlier) hats.
>
> Yup. That ill-defined reason that boiled down to "you're
> supposed to."
>
Which is easier to understand than "Someone might see you" or "What will
people think?".
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> In article <301ebd5c-0981-456a...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Please understand that it goes both ways; the man who invented
>> pantyhose has, in literature, been condemned to the lowest circle of
>> hell a number of times....
>
> etcetera? That it was preferable in the eyes of the people you
> refer to, that women should be imprisoned in low-level torture
> devices so that men could have the lascivious fun of thinking
> about them being tortured?
>
I for one never found them remotely attractive, and the knobbly bits
that actually held the stocking would often stick into you when dancing
or during other activities that involved having the (clothed) lady very
close to one's own body.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> On Dec 14, 8:06 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>> In article <301ebd5c-0981-456a-85ce-4d7e7f8fc...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>> Please understand that it goes both ways; the man who invented
>>> pantyhose has, in literature, been condemned to the lowest circle of
>>> hell a number of times....
>> On ecaxtly what grounds? That pantyhose got rid of garter belts
>> etcetera? That it was preferable in the eyes of the people you
>> refer to, that women should be imprisoned in low-level torture
>> devices so that men could have the lascivious fun of thinking
>> about them being tortured?
>
> a target of desire much, much less accessible. I don't think most men
> had any consciousness that the old tech was uncomfortable, much less
> thought that it being uncomfortable was a good thing.
Then please let's not get onto corsets. I fumbled around a number of
young ladies who wore them back then - might as well have been chainmail.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> In article <12608...@sheol.org>, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>> : djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>> : desire much less accessible"? Which was the target of desire,
>> : the female or the underwear?
>>
>> disentangle pantyhose from said target than panties and/or previous
>> supplementary undergarments, especially in teenage-stereotypical groping
>> scenarios. And/or that partial disrobing is less practical with pantyhose.
>
> female herself to take off pantyhose, than either to get all the
> way out of a panty girdle or to tug a pair of ordinary underpants
> out from under a garter belt. I never engaged in any teenaged
> stereotypical groping scenarios, but one had to go to the ladies'
> room on a regular basis. Believe me: pantyhose just peeled off
> and, one's business completed, skooshed back up again.
>
> I wonder if these teenaged stereotypical groping scenarios took
> place in the male teenager's head, not in reality? Certainly the
> fellow upthread, reminiscing about his development into a Dirty
> Old Man, seemed to find the complex accourtrements a lot more
> interesting than the female herself, in spite of what you say
> above.
>
Got to agree with you. Pantyhose is a one-handed manoeuvre - at least
down to the knees - whereas girdles were much more technical.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
The older generation - or rather my grandmother's generation had the
right equipment: long, steel hatpins. They probably wore their hats in
bed just in case.
--
Rob Bannister
Kurt Busiek
> In article <301ebd5c-0981-456a...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Please understand that it goes both ways; the man who invented
>> pantyhose has, in literature, been condemned to the lowest circle of
>> hell a number of times....
>
> On ecaxtly what grounds? That pantyhose got rid of garter belts
> etcetera? That it was preferable in the eyes of the people you
> refer to, that women should be imprisoned in low-level torture
> devices so that men could have the lascivious fun of thinking
> about them being tortured?
First prize in the Conspiracy to Torture Women in the Name of Fashion
still goes to whoever it was who came up with the idea of convincing
women to rip their own eyebrows out, one hair at a time.
I'm paraphrasing some 1980s sitcom, but don't remember which one.
Kurt Busiek
I find garter belts sexy as hell (on the right woman, and not on, say,
Nuke LaLoosh), but admittedly, the women of my generation wear them by
choice, when they choose to, not by necessity.
I also think high heels do very attractive things to a woman's legs,
but recognize that they're uncomfortable and teetery, and those are
rather more important factors.