'Slutwear' Is So Last Year on New York Runways
Lord Hasenpfeffer
Highlights of the article:
HIP TO BE MODEST
...the "slutwear" look comes to an end.
Demure designs have replaced scanty navel-baring looks...
"The slut is out now. She's dead,"...
...fashion has been filled with skimpy tops exposing midriffs... and
jeans slung so low that...
...Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.
This season...Necklines were up, while hemlines were...at the knee.
"It's very ladylike. It's not jump-into-bed fashion,"...
Women who actually buy fashion may have sent a message to designers who
have been preoccupied dressing rock stars...
"There was too much slutwear," he said. "Slutwear doesn't play in the
boardroom and it doesn't play in the office.
...The money is in Monday through Friday...
...the new look "prim and improper."
"It's the new modesty," she said. "It's what's under the clothes,
something seething underneath. We won't be showing it so much on the
surface."
...the new modesty may be backlash to the "slutwear" look creeping into
the children's market and young girls trying to copy the revealing,
belly-baring looks of pop stars such as Spears.
Naz Reyes
Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040914/ts_nm/fashion_slutwear_dc_5
>
>
> Highlights of the article:
>
> HIP TO BE MODEST
>
> ...the "slutwear" look comes to an end.
>
> Demure designs have replaced scanty navel-baring looks...
>
> "The slut is out now. She's dead,"...
>
> ...fashion has been filled with skimpy tops exposing midriffs... and
> jeans slung so low that...
>
> ...Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.
>
> This season...Necklines were up, while hemlines were...at the knee.
>
> "It's very ladylike. It's not jump-into-bed fashion,"...
>
> Women who actually buy fashion may have sent a message to designers who
> have been preoccupied dressing rock stars...
>
> "There was too much slutwear," he said. "Slutwear doesn't play in the
> boardroom and it doesn't play in the office.
It's possible that that "air of conservatism" is finally sinking in
people's subconscious, with the Republicans in power and all...just a guess.
I've also heard that "slutwear" or anything too revealing for both men
and women are slowly being phased out in offices around the country,
with *dress codes* and such.
My opinion on this is that most people (Republican or not) are probably
just sick and tired of the "slutwear", and you can only go so far with
lesser and lesser clothes. Pretty soon, you may as well not wear
anything at all, and I think it's pretty close to THAT already :-)
-Naz
Lord Hasenpfeffer
>
> It's possible that that "air of conservatism" is finally sinking in
> people's subconscious, with the Republicans in power and all...just a
> guess.
Aside from occupying the White House, the Republicans have been,
quote-unquote, "in power" consistently since November 1994 ... so I'm
reluctant to draw such a parallel between the two.
> I've also heard that "slutwear" or anything too revealing for both men
> and women are slowly being phased out in offices around the country,
> with *dress codes* and such.
I've heard the same.
> My opinion on this is that most people (Republican or not) are probably
> just sick and tired of the "slutwear", and you can only go so far with
> lesser and lesser clothes.
I'm by no means as thin as I used to be but I know I've been sick and
tired for years now of seeing girls with pudgy lovehandles pooching out
over their "low-rise" beltlines everywhere I go. I grew up believing
that lovehandles were a guy-thing but over the course of the last few
years I've learned otherwise!
Myke
Naz Reyes
Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:
Well, I think it's disgusting to see people who have lovehandles (or
whatever overweight part of their body) to be advertising them in
public. I don't have any problems with overweight people who dress
appropriately in public (I was once overweight and even struggled with
weight loss all of my life), but I have a problem with those who
flambouyantly *advertise* their fat in public. *That* is truly
disgusting and inappropriate. There should be a LAW against this ;-)
I don't have any problems with people stripping in public IF they have
something NICE to show, but if you ain't got it, then I say "put some
CLOTHES on".
-Naz
Lord Hasenpfeffer
>
> Well, I think it's disgusting to see people who have lovehandles (or
> whatever overweight part of their body) to be advertising them in
> public. I don't have any problems with overweight people who dress
> appropriately in public (I was once overweight and even struggled with
> weight loss all of my life), but I have a problem with those who
> flambouyantly *advertise* their fat in public. *That* is truly
> disgusting and inappropriate. There should be a LAW against this ;-)
LOL! :)
Girls wear low-rise jeans because they're "trendy" not because they look
good in them. I know this because 99% of the time girls who wear them
look downright bad in them - with big pooches of fat pushed up and over
their belts. When I first started gaining weight in my 20s I heard
nothing but jokes from my coworkers about how I'd contracted Dunlop
Disease (i.e. my gut had 'dun lopped' over my belt). Then again, I've
always been ahead of my time. :)
Naz Reyes
This is the problem that I'm talking about. It's really not about
looking bad because one is fat, it's about making good fashion decisions
to enhance one's figure, fat or not. Like you said, it just doesn't
look good when you have "pooches of fat" (pooches? lol) pushed up and
over your belt. The remedy is probably wearing something a little loose
to under-enhance the fat. Shoulder pads, I heard, also de-emphasizes
the appearance around the belly area (not MY idea)...LMAO!!!
Also, if you have a gut, CUT OFFS are a no-no, whether you're a male or
female. We already know that, don't we? Well, for those who are
clueless, unless you're pregnant and wanna show off your future baby,
there is absolutely no reason to show off that huge ball around your tummy!
Oh - and please don't *even* get me started with piercings or tatoos
around the belly area. Bottom line is this: *absolutely* no cutoffs if
you have a gut, piercings/tatoos or not! ;-)
-Naz ("queer eye's" fashion specialist...LOL)
Zaragon
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040914/ts_nm/fashion_slutwear_dc_5
>
>
> Highlights of the article:
>
> HIP TO BE MODEST
>
> ...the "slutwear" look comes to an end.
Yawn. Every year they seem to be flipping the same coin back and
fourth when, in reality, the world of high fashion hasn't had any
leverage in over 11 years. They killed themselves when they tried to
turn "grunge" into some 4 figure catwalk prop. Old Navy and Ross are
the "haute couture" of today.
Knee length skirts...*so* five years ago. Heck, these
above-the-butt-cheek petticoats that girls have worn over the last
year look simply childish, what with bare legs and all (that same
nasty bare legged trend that has women over 40 right to go an place a
chicken beak on their face.) In fact, that whole anti-hose abomination
was dictated by the "experts" as a way of making mini's look un-sexy
and simply casual.
"Slutwear", slushwear. This whole thing of taking ugly 70's clothes
and trying to make them look "tart" by stripping the backs off tops
and cutting the bellbottoms low around the waist...blah! Who ever said
navels were a turn on in the first place? Where I come from, it was
always sheer legs and cleavage. Fact is, girls set their boundaries by
what kinds of ensembles "won't" make them look like a slut (just as a
typical guy limits himself by what he thinks won't or will make him
look "gay".) Therefore, in times like these where the fabric's barely
there, girls avoid anything that's actually sexy (nylons, pointed toe
pumps, short sequined dresses and tightly buttoned, padded jackets)
and simply scrounge for all the most hideous, drab and bloated shapes
and motifs. Check and balance in these post-modern times.
So yes, by all means cover up, ladies! Good riddance to low riders,
baby tops, bare legs and open toe shoes. Hello to sleek, sexy (in the
true sense of the world) and sophisticated ensembles (as mentioned up
above.) It's time to step out of the 90's and into *this* decade, to
embrace a new era and leave post-modernism in the trashbin.
TS
Lord Hasenpfeffer
I'm trying to visualize these words coming from the mouth of the
colourful person in the picture immediately below the word "Zaragon" on
the picture page for regulars in this NG - but for some reason I'm just
not able to do that. :)
Hep me, hep me, I been hyp-mo-tize!
Myke
Zaragon
How come? Does my outlook seem too, urr, glum?
TS
Zaragon
> Naz Reyes wrote:
> >
> > Well, I think it's disgusting to see people who have lovehandles (or
> > whatever overweight part of their body) to be advertising them in
> > public. I don't have any problems with overweight people who dress
> > appropriately in public (I was once overweight and even struggled with
> > weight loss all of my life), but I have a problem with those who
> > flambouyantly *advertise* their fat in public. *That* is truly
> > disgusting and inappropriate. There should be a LAW against this ;-)
>
> LOL! :)
>
> Girls wear low-rise jeans because they're "trendy" not because they look
> good in them.
It's amazing what sheep women can be. Two years ago, sexy pointed-toe
stiletto pumps were considered old hat, faux pas, hopelessly out of
fashion and (even worse) "politically incorrect". From 1996 onward it
had all been about bulbous, strappy, clunky platform shoes of varying
shapes of hideousness. Then, late last year, BOOM! Suddenly, just
about all you saw on women were the kinds of footwear that us guys had
been longing for sense the last liberal congress. A coupla' years ago,
most women would have said "never". Goes to show that all it takes is
for someone up there to revise their design and BAMM! Makes me wonder
why they don't just toss every last remnant of that whole retro 70's
thing this instant. I'm sure most women have more than a closet full
of that garbage already, and that all these huge fashionista's could
really turn round their sagging profits with a revamped inventory.
Ain't that the reason for fashion cycles in the first place?
TS
Zaragon
> Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:
> > Girls wear low-rise jeans because they're "trendy" not because they look
> > good in them. I know this because 99% of the time girls who wear them
> > look downright bad in them - with big pooches of fat pushed up and over
> > their belts. When I first started gaining weight in my 20s I heard
> > nothing but jokes from my coworkers about how I'd contracted Dunlop
> > Disease (i.e. my gut had 'dun lopped' over my belt). Then again, I've
> > always been ahead of my time. :)
>
> This is the problem that I'm talking about. It's really not about
> looking bad because one is fat, it's about making good fashion decisions
> to enhance one's figure, fat or not.
And the hideous, retro-70's shapes and silhouettes that have dominated
for nearly a decade do not flatter the female form at all. You can cut
away as much fabric as you want, but all that skin just ain't a turn
on when it's not framed properly.
> The remedy is probably wearing something a little loose
> to under-enhance the fat.
How about women get back to pantyhose and high waisted skirts (that'll
help suck it in) with bodysuits (so long, navel) under tightly
buttoned jackets. At least a thousand times sexier (and classier all
in one) than that revolting muck the *experts* so ingeniously label
"slutwear".
> Shoulder pads, I heard, also de-emphasizes
> the appearance around the belly area (not MY idea)...LMAO!!!
I never thought of shoulder pads correlating to the waist, but I do
think they're a fashion essential for both sexes. Which brings me back
to the concept of which shapes and silhouettes do or don't enhance the
human form. Shoulder pads, and that whole late-80's/early-90's
silhouette, do.
> Also, if you have a gut, CUT OFFS are a no-no, whether you're a male or
> female. We already know that, don't we?
Blah, I don't even wear shorts. Men's legs are an eye sore (granted,
this whole bare legged look on women is hardly any better.) If it's
really hot, I wear floods. Which brings up another problem, that women
are being marketed Capri pants, but all that Old Navy is giving the
guys is wide, knee length shorts. Time for some men's or unisex
floods, just like we had in the 80's, 60's, 50's, 40's... heck, during
any era of good taste (everything but the 70's, '90's and today.)
'Cause when men have higher hemlines that women, there's definitely
something wrong.
> Oh - and please don't *even* get me started with piercings or tatoos
> around the belly area.
Yikes. I hear that's now getting so ingrained in society now that that
too has contributed to the nasty bare legged blight. Their attitude
being "why wear nylons anymore? We want to show off our tattoos." What
has this society come to when something beautiful could be replaced by
something that's at best gaudy and at worst hideous. Makes me want to
run for city government and get an ordinance passed - $100 fine for
bare legs!
TS
Aaron Baugher
>> Oh - and please don't *even* get me started with piercings or
>> tatoos around the belly area.
> Yikes. I hear that's now getting so ingrained in society now that
> that too has contributed to the nasty bare legged blight. Their
> attitude being "why wear nylons anymore? We want to show off our
> tattoos."
Yeah, it seems like everyone's doing it. I've becoming a
counter-cultural revolutionary just by declining to pay someone to
stick needles in me as a leisure activity. When I see a tattoo, my
first thought is usually, "Hey, she's got some dirt or something on
her." Once I realize what it is, I'm always reminded of that line
from a song, "I want to be different, just like everybody else."
I can't say I mind bare female legs, though. Sorry.
--
Aaron -- abau...@esc.pike.il.us
Zaragon
Maybe I wouldn't mind if they weren't so universal right now. If it
was just one of several co-existing fads, I could simply chose to
ignore it. It's just like grunge and elephant leg pants back in the
90's. If those styles had simply remained some cult minority, it
wouldn't have been so obnoxious. Yet they just took over at the
expense of everything else.
Aside from the fact that nylons turned me on to women in the first
place (at age 6), one of the reasons I'm really miffed about current
trends is that LA appears to be (from all accounts) the absolute worst
place in the world right now for a sheer legman. And to think I had
moved here thinking it would be the exact opposite.
TS
Naz Reyes
Zaragon wrote:
> Naz Reyes <us...@site.com> wrote in message news:<10kkj3b...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>>The remedy is probably wearing something a little loose
>>to under-enhance the fat.
>
> How about women get back to pantyhose and high waisted skirts (that'll
> help suck it in) with bodysuits (so long, navel) under tightly
> buttoned jackets. At least a thousand times sexier (and classier all
> in one) than that revolting muck the *experts* so ingeniously label
> "slutwear".
Well, if women are not wearing panties these days, do you honestly think
that they would be wearing pantyhoses? ;-)
I suppose it's part of that "women's lib" thing or something...I don't know.
And, as for bodysuits, it may help with the figure a bit, but don't you
think that sounds soo Victorian? It brings memories of "padlocking" the
groin area and all. :)
>
>>Also, if you have a gut, CUT OFFS are a no-no, whether you're a male or
>>female. We already know that, don't we?
>
>
> Blah, I don't even wear shorts. Men's legs are an eye sore (granted,
> this whole bare legged look on women is hardly any better.) If it's
> really hot, I wear floods. Which brings up another problem, that women
> are being marketed Capri pants, but all that Old Navy is giving the
> guys is wide, knee length shorts.
Well, I absolutely *love* shorts, especially during the summer when it's
so hot, and love showing my legs...LOL...so, you know my answer on that
one. I say, "to each his/her own". And as for that "wide, knee-length
shorts for men, I like them. I bring too much attention to myself (and
the public) when I wear anything shorter, or anything too tight around
that area! I'm NOT even going there!!! ;-)
>
>>Oh - and please don't *even* get me started with piercings or tatoos
>>around the belly area.
>
>
> Yikes. I hear that's now getting so ingrained in society now that that
> too has contributed to the nasty bare legged blight. Their attitude
> being "why wear nylons anymore? We want to show off our tattoos." What
> has this society come to when something beautiful could be replaced by
> something that's at best gaudy and at worst hideous. Makes me want to
> run for city government and get an ordinance passed - $100 fine for
> bare legs!
>
> TS
Now now, let's not get ridiculous here. Why hide the legs when the legs
can be beautiful? I mean, I understand if one has some sub-par looking
legs, but it's not a good enough reason to enforce a law against "naked
legs". Even the *worst* looking legs are NOT that bad to me. I'll even
say that the thinnest and the fattest legs I've seen *do not* look
repulsive to me, for both male and female.
-Naz
Naz Reyes
Zaragon wrote:
>
> How come? Does my outlook seem too, urr, glum?
>
> TS
Can I give you some advice here, if you don't mind?
I think you look a bit too colorful in *that* picture, and you have too
many accessories hanging all over the place :)
It's probably OK to look like that if you were on stage, but not on the
street, unless you want a LOT of attention.
And if your outlook does seem a little glum (as that picture suggests)
wearing black would be more appropriate ;-)
-Naz (who needs a new makeover)
gu...@american.edu
Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:
> Zaragon wrote:
>> So yes, by all means cover up, ladies! Good riddance to low riders,
>> baby tops, bare legs and open toe shoes. Hello to sleek, sexy (in the
>> true sense of the world) and sophisticated ensembles (as mentioned up
>> above.) It's time to step out of the 90's and into *this* decade, to
>> embrace a new era and leave post-modernism in the trashbin.
>
>
> I'm trying to visualize these words coming from the mouth of the
> colourful person in the picture immediately below the word "Zaragon" on
> the picture page for regulars in this NG - but for some reason I'm just
> not able to do that. :)
Thank you for practicing "restraint", Myke ;-)
You know, there are people who are attracted to their exact opposite. I
have friends who are "out there" when it comes to fashion, but they're
actually attracted to more "conservative-looking" people. I guess that
"opposites atract" thing isn't a myth for some people.
That's all I have to say about that :)
-Naz
Lord Hasenpfeffer
>
>> I'm trying to visualize these words coming from the mouth of the
>> colourful person in the picture immediately below the word "Zaragon"
>> on the picture page for regulars in this NG - but for some reason I'm
>> just not able to do that. :)
>
> Thank you for practicing "restraint", Myke ;-)
Sure. :)
> You know, there are people who are attracted to their exact opposite. I
> have friends who are "out there" when it comes to fashion, but they're
> actually attracted to more "conservative-looking" people. I guess that
> "opposites atract" thing isn't a myth for some people.
>
> That's all I have to say about that :)
Opposites attract... Birds of a feather...
I've always been amused by how people use these phrases according to
whatever the current situation requires. :)
Myke
Naz Reyes
Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:
I think you're trying to say something here that I don't quite grasp at
this moment. Could you elaborate on that last sentence, please? :-)
Or, if not, could you send me an email?
-Naz
Lord Hasenpfeffer
>
>> Opposites attract... Birds of a feather...
>>
>> I've always been amused by how people use these phrases according to
>> whatever the current situation requires. :)
>
> this moment. Could you elaborate on that last sentence, please? :-)
There's nothing "between the lines" to be found there.
It's strictly face value.
Have you never noticed how people say "opposites attract" whenever they
find it appropriate to do so but then they say "birds of a feather flock
together" whenever they find an exact opposite situation about which to
comment?
I just find this amusing. That's all.
Kinda like when Billy Idol said in a 1985 MTV interview,
"Rock is dead. Long live rock." :)
Myke
Zaragon
> Zaragon wrote:
> > Naz Reyes <us...@site.com> wrote in message news:<10kkj3b...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >
> >>The remedy is probably wearing something a little loose
> >>to under-enhance the fat.
> >
> > How about women get back to pantyhose and high waisted skirts (that'll
> > help suck it in) with bodysuits (so long, navel) under tightly
> > buttoned jackets. At least a thousand times sexier (and classier all
> > in one) than that revolting muck the *experts* so ingeniously label
> > "slutwear".
>
> Well, if women are not wearing panties these days, do you honestly think
> that they would be wearing pantyhoses? ;-)
The whole functional point (among many, many other points) of women
wearing pantyhose is to be rid of panties (not to mention garters.)
> I suppose it's part of that "women's lib" thing or something...I don't know.
And yet the days of women's lib have passed. Political correctness is
over as well. Pantyhose survived both those phases?
> And, as for bodysuits, it may help with the figure a bit, but don't you
> think that sounds soo Victorian?
More 80's/early 90's to me. I'm thinking spandex thong bodysuits with
a snap at the crotch, worn over pantyhose and under a high waisted
tube skirt and tightly buttoned, shoulder padded jacket. A great
business-to-workout-to-nighttime ensemble.
> It brings memories of "padlocking" the
> groin area and all. :)
>
> >
> >>Also, if you have a gut, CUT OFFS are a no-no, whether you're a male or
> >>female. We already know that, don't we?
> >
> >
> > Blah, I don't even wear shorts. Men's legs are an eye sore (granted,
> > this whole bare legged look on women is hardly any better.) If it's
> > really hot, I wear floods. Which brings up another problem, that women
> > are being marketed Capri pants, but all that Old Navy is giving the
> > guys is wide, knee length shorts.
>
> Well, I absolutely *love* shorts, especially during the summer when it's
> so hot, and love showing my legs...LOL...so, you know my answer on that
> one. I say, "to each his/her own". And as for that "wide, knee-length
> shorts for men, I like them. I bring too much attention to myself (and
> the public) when I wear anything shorter, or anything too tight around
> that area! I'm NOT even going there!!! ;-)
The point I was making is that there should be mid-calf trousers
marketed towards men for the warmer seasons. It's just really stupid
the way couples look when the man's hemline is higher than the
woman's.
> >
> >>Oh - and please don't *even* get me started with piercings or tatoos
> >>around the belly area.
> >
> >
> > Yikes. I hear that's now getting so ingrained in society now that that
> > too has contributed to the nasty bare legged blight. Their attitude
> > being "why wear nylons anymore? We want to show off our tattoos." What
> > has this society come to when something beautiful could be replaced by
> > something that's at best gaudy and at worst hideous. Makes me want to
> > run for city government and get an ordinance passed - $100 fine for
> > bare legs!
> Now now, let's not get ridiculous here. Why hide the legs when the legs
> can be beautiful?
It's not about hiding them, it's about beautifying and maximizing
them. Sure, a woman's bare legs are fine and appropriate when she's
wearing a bikini, or shorts, or even some simple pleated skirt with
flats. But when she's wearing a sleek suit with pumps, or some slinky
cocktail dress with stilettos, or even a micro-mini and vinyl jacket
ensemble, to not wear nylons is a total waste and an utter disgrace.
> I mean, I understand if one has some sub-par looking
> legs, but it's not a good enough reason to enforce a law against "naked
> legs".
The problem with advertising these days is that pantyhose are marketed
towards overweight women as simply a way of hiding their flaws. They
really ought to be marketed towards beautiful, hourglass women as a
sensual way of enhancing their beauty and maximizing their sex appeal.
Alas, these days women have this malformed notion of "aren't my bare
legs fine enough?" By that same logic, it would seem that make-up
would be falling off the face of the earth as well, only to be worn by
the most ugly, pockmarked, deformed faces out there. Yet beautiful
girls who don't even need it are wearing more make-up than ever. Of
course, here in LA, any girl who isn't an aspiring actress is a
make-up artist. Very fine and all, but in a choice between make-up and
nylons as to which survives into this millennium, I'll take the latter
hands down (on their legs <grin>) for the rest of my life.
TS
Zaragon
At the time of that photo, I wanted nothing more than for that cotton
candy-haired New Wave chick who swung her hips on the intro/outro
segments of VH-1's *The Big 80's* (remember her?) to step right out of
the TV screen and come sliding onto my lap. These days, I'd prefer to
be stylin' in a sharkskin zoot suit with the likeness of Marisa Tomei
circa _My Cousin Vinny_ on my arm. So the paradox of
eccentric/outlandish looks and strident/conservative-sounding attitude
would only draw from the misconception of pairing my 22 years of age
likeness to my ideas as a 31 year old man.
TS
Terry
"Zaragon" <zara...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:90eb345e.04091...@posting.google.com...
> Naz Reyes <us...@site.com> wrote in message
news:<10kpa2h...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > Zaragon wrote:
> > > Naz Reyes <us...@site.com> wrote in message
news:<10kkj3b...@corp.supernews.com>...
You know what I think is the funniest thing? A buncha guys talking about
women's fashions. I never knew you guys cared so much!!!
Terry (of the female persurasion and *hates* pantyhose. They're
constricting, always get runs, and unless you put them on very carefully,
get all twisted and uncomfortable.)
Lord Hasenpfeffer
> You know what I think is the funniest thing? A buncha guys talking about
> women's fashions. I never knew you guys cared so much!!!
Never used to have to talk about it back when the girls actually knew
what they were doing. :)
Kelly
>You know what I think is the funniest thing? A buncha guys talking about
>women's fashions. I never knew you guys cared so much!!!
>
>Terry (of the female persurasion and *hates* pantyhose. They're
>constricting, always get runs, and unless you put them on very carefully,
>get all twisted and uncomfortable.)
>
>
every pair of pantyhose you put on has a run?
The only plus side to pantyhose is in the winter. Somehow that extra
layer makes a big difference in keeping you legs warm.
--
Kelly
"Watch out where the Huskies go
And don't you eat that yellow snow"
Frank Zappa
Don't Eat The Yellow Snow
Terry
"Kelly" <msspi...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bb80d96b...@news.optonline.net...
> "Terry" <none> wrote
> >You know what I think is the funniest thing? A buncha guys talking about
> >women's fashions. I never knew you guys cared so much!!!
> >
> >Terry (of the female persurasion and *hates* pantyhose. They're
> >constricting, always get runs, and unless you put them on very carefully,
> >get all twisted and uncomfortable.)
> >
> >
> Doesn't it always happen that the days you are rushed are the days that
> every pair of pantyhose you put on has a run?
>
> The only plus side to pantyhose is in the winter. Somehow that extra
> layer makes a big difference in keeping you legs warm.
Oh, yeah. Winter mornings waiting for the bus. Brrr.... I went to a private
school, where we had a strict dress code that included pantyhose. I *always*
had runs in mine.
Terry
Zaragon
It all depends on the quality. A women I dated a few years back felt
just as you did when we first met, because she had only worn cheap
brands. I got her to try some fancier, designer brands, and her
attitude changed. She got into it, loving the sensual feel of that
second silky membrane caressing her lower half. She also noticed me
being a lot more responsive to her when she had them on, as well as
men giving her lots more attention, smiles and courtesy wherever she
went.
TS