 sj |
||
|
||
BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: *daylia* Date: 30 Jul 06 - 10:26 PM Hard wired because children have shorter legs in comparison to the upper body; legs lengthen to adult proportions with the growth spurt at puberty. Long legs are a visual 'cue' of the female's sexual maturity, of her biological 'readiness' to mate. And high heels, of course, accentuate/exaggerate that ancient hard-wired visual cue - that's why people of both sexes find them irresistably sexy. Now, shall we discuss why women wear lipstick? There's an ancient hard-wired 'visual cue' behind that one too, I've heard ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: Ebbie Date: 30 Jul 06 - 10:37 PM lol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: frogprince Date: 30 Jul 06 - 11:11 PM I think I know the theory about lipstick and visual cues that Daylia is referring to; But I really think that if I saw some of the details of a woman's anatomy, and they were fire-engine red, I would be more inclined to rush her to a doctor than to "get it on" with her! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: Ebbie Date: 31 Jul 06 - 02:32 AM LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: bobad Date: 31 Jul 06 - 07:01 AM Now, what visual cues are the females of the species hard wired to respond to other than size (of bank account) or thickness (of wallet). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 31 Jul 06 - 07:40 AM "Men are more than a little responsible for the women wearing those heels imo." That's a bit like saying women are more than a little responsible for sexual harassment because of the way they dress. Seems to me we all have to accept responsibility for the things we do, including both nasty stuff like sexual harassment and stupid stuff like wearing crippling shoes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: jacqui.c Date: 31 Jul 06 - 08:07 AM Unfortunately the media tend to highlight as 'desirable' the wearing of high heels. A lot of teenage girls are susceptible to this - they want to look like the latest pop star or model, most of whom are pictured in their very short skirts and high heels. The fact that, quite often, parents try to discourage these fashions may only make them more determined to do so. From my own point of view I find it difficult to understand why any man would want to give up the comfort and convenience of highly practical clothing and take on the time consuming impractability of dressing in womens clothes and wearing makeup! Takes all sorts I guess. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: *daylia* Date: 31 Jul 06 - 08:16 AM Exactly. I've known women who needed an extra closet just for their shoes. It's a gender-free fetish, as far as I can see! Spent a few hours on a friend's boat the other day. I've known him since childhood, and I trust our platonic relationship implicitly! Interesting incident with the suntan lotion - I'd forgotten mine, he offered his. Great! I said. K, take off your shoes he said. Well, ok why not I thought, and kicked off my sandals. THen he proceeded to squirt a couple cups of lotion on each foot, and spread it round and round and up my legs with his foot. Hmm, this is a little strange, I thought, helping him out with my other greasy foot, but hey it's only his foot. Not his hands. Nothing subversive here. Relax and enjoy it! So I did, till we got back to his place and he turned on his computer. There, on his desktop, was a pair of the cutest black-stockinged little feet I ever saw. Ahhhh .... NOW suddenly some old memories were coming back. "You have a foot fetish!" I said. "Yup I do", he said. "Your brother does too!" I exclaimed. (His brother was my significant other for many years, and we're still great friends). "WHat do you expect, we're twins!" he said. Oooooooo .... sly dogs, or WHAT?!? Now I know!!! SHould I charg him with sexual assault, maybe? Oh, I forgot, that's right, it's MY fault for taking off my sandals. Or rather, my fault for even wearing those scanty revealing things in the first place. So who could possibly blame the helplessly hardwired visually cued hormonally compelled male? ANd as to what visual cues females are hardwired for, could it be the size of his MAllet and the shortness of his skirts? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: *daylia* Date: 31 Jul 06 - 09:55 AM Wow do I ever LOVE Mudcat! Posting here is so very inspiring -- I just came up with a great plan for using my provocatively podiatric powers productively -- and getting back at those 2 at the same time! First, I'll invite them both over (they're better behaved when they're together). I'll teach them how to give a pedicure, just the way I like 'em. For free, even! Then, once a month they can come over and bathe and massage and clip and cream (sorry!) and buff and file and paint and polish to their heart's content. NO more twisting myself into a pretzel for hours on end trying to do it myself, and my tender little tootsies will be so very very very happy ALL the time, forevermore! Wheee-hooo!!!! I'll decide on a reasonable (for them) but highly profitable (for me!) hourly fee, of course. $100/hr or so should meet my needs nicely! No sales tax or GST though. And I'll better draw up a sign to hold on my lap as they work away ... "Nothing above the knees, guys. Nothing above the knees". Wow, I can hardly wait! Gonna call 'em, right now -- I'll keep y'all posted. And thank you SO much, Mudcat, just for being here! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 31 Jul 06 - 06:29 PM Maybe that's how all these nail-bars that seem to be proliferating started up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: GUEST,Dave Date: 01 Aug 06 - 10:29 AM On these hot days, I can't imagine wearing cotton men's underwear. Women's nylon panties are the only way to go. I started wearing only white bikinis, but now I'm into colours too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: *daylia* Date: 01 Aug 06 - 10:51 AM But nylon panties trap moisture and bacteria, Dave. Cotton is so much kinder to your skin! You can easily find colorful cotton panties in all manner of pretty, lacy styles too. Just shop around! It's not wise to sit around in your wet bikinis either, for the same reasons. Better to change asap, after swimming. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 01 Aug 06 - 02:42 PM Could it possibly be related to women's relationship to clothes? I was wandering around the centre of the major UK city that I live in, the other day, and it suddenly struck me how many thousands of square feet of retail floorspace are devoted to the sale of women's clothes and how little (relatively speaking) to men's. Most women seem to adore clothes (I'm not knocking this , you understand - just an observation) and are expected to experiment whereas men tend to be much less interested and, like me, may actively hate clothes shopping. Thus the number of men who go as far as dressing in women's clothes tends to be in a minority (and if you produce some spurious statistic which 'proves' that 40%, or whatever, of men in the UK/US are secret cross-dressers I won't believe you!). Also, of course, as has been pointed out above, many women can look sexy and attractive in anything whereas men in women's clothing often look grotesque. Actually, I saw a man in drag last Saturday and although I completely support his right to wear whatever he likes, I'm afraid to say he looked grotesque!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Aug 06 - 05:14 PM Actually most of us look pretty grotesque whatever we wear. It's just that people get used to the look over time. That's why it's possible for a man to walk out in the street wearing informal clothes that would, have looked perfectly normal back in the mid-nineteenth century and he'll still look perfectly normal today. Not fashionable maybe, but fashionable isn't normal anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: GUEST,Dave Date: 02 Aug 06 - 03:30 PM *daylia* You sound experienced. I assume you are a woman. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: *daylia* Date: 03 Aug 06 - 07:59 AM Yup. And I assumed you were kidding, but played along anyway just for fun. If you were serious though, what I said about health and cotton vs nylon is true. Then again, your mother probably taught you that ;-) Shimrod says Most women seem to adore clothes (I'm not knocking this , you understand - just an observation) and are expected to experiment whereas men tend to be much less interested and, like me, may actively hate clothes shopping. That's true. I think some men claim to hate it simply because shopping is a 'gendered' activity (usually considered to be "the woman's job", whether it's for clothes or groceries or other household items. Reminds me of the little dud in Molly's poetry class: "Chick poem!" So a lot of women do all the clothes shopping for the whole family -- men included. IF I hadn't bought my husband clothes, I think he would have gone through life in one pair of shoes, 2 pairs of jeans, 2 t-shirts, a sweatshirt and borrowed formal wear when he needed it. If I wanted him to look better than that, I had to dress him myself! And now that my sons are grown, it AMAZES me how quickly they shop. For them, shopping is a chore, not a pleasure. My son can find everything he needs/wants for a new season in 20 minutes flat, shopping at only 1 or 2 stores. He always knows exactly what he wants before he goes, and it takes a lot less time to find it too, in the smaller men's depts. Meanwhile, I usually need a whole day (or several) to try things on and make up my mind re all the new styles, colours, prices. Typically, men have only 3 'styles' to shop for anyway- masculine casual wear, masculine work wear and masculine formal wear. Women, on the other hand, usually need both 'feminine' and 'unisex' styles, for casual and work wear anyway. So women need more clothes, and find a much wider selection to choose from. And it seems to me that fitting is a more complicated matter for women than it is for men too ... Anyways, from a woman's perspective it's usually not a man's clothing, his fashion sense or even just his appearance in general that make him attractive. Unfortunately, I don't think your average guy could say the same thing! And that's another reason why women spend a lot more time and energy and money on clothing - particularly the younger ones. IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: *daylia* Date: 03 Aug 06 - 09:15 AM PS Just thinkin -- another reason women shop for clothes more often than men is that manufacturers tend to make men's clothes more durable ie higher quality, thicker, easily laundered fabrics; reinforced seams; practical, comfortable 'classic' designs that don't go out of style. Dollar for dollar, women's clothes become outdated and fall apart a lot more quickly than men's - an example of planned obsolescence, perhaps? A few years ago, knowing I'd be spending a lot of time outdoors that fall, I bought a couple pairs of rough-and-tumble men's cargo pants (reversible, even!) and 3 hoodies (thick hooded sweatshirts) to match. Wore 'em a lot for awhile, not so much lately. I'm tired of the (slightly) sagging waist and tight-hipped pants, and the weight of those hooded men's sweats. But even after a couple years or so of regular outdoor wear, my men's clothes are still in great shape, look almost as good as the day I bought 'em. I want to throw them out, but the practical side of me is still putting up a fuss! In comparsion, most of the ladies' clothing I bought that same year - even in the same rough-and-tumble styles, and after just as many hours of wear - is either long gone or well on it's way -- fraying, faded, seams falling apart. Not too hard to figure out what's going on here! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: *daylia* Date: 03 Aug 06 - 09:47 AM PPS and back to the subject at hand, at least I can wear my men's pants and sweats in public without arousing anyone's homicidal tendencies! Someday, my more adventurous 'brothers' might be able to do likewise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: robomatic Date: 03 Aug 06 - 09:21 PM I see all too few women dressing feminine lately, and the styles for the tweens and teens are simply abhorrent. String underwear appearing above the waistline, the low cut jeans pinching all but the skinniest girls in order to produce an unattractive bulge instead of an attractive curve. The willingness of today's young women to pay money for these awful things (and the coccyxal tattoo that goes with it) reminds me of the brilliant Richard Thompson lyric: Oh she gets her suits from a personal friend, Coco the clown She got dustman's jacket, inside out, it's a party gown If it's bouffons, she's got bouffons, if it's tat she got tat She got hoochie coochie Gucci and a pom-pom hat She's got everything a girl might need She's a tribal animal, yes indeed But she hasn't got a bone through her nose, through her nose She hasn't got a bone through her nose She hasn't got a bone through her nose, through her nose She hasn't got a bone through her nose She hasn't got a bone through her nose, through her nose She hasn't got a bone through her nose No! and an older Danny Kaye song: "Anatole of Paris": I'm Anatole of Paris I must design I'm just like wine I go to your head Give me thread and the needle I itch, I twitch to stitch I'm a glutton for cutting For putting with a button To snip and pluck, nip and tuck Fix and trim, plan the brim Tote that barge, lift that bail And why do I sew each new chapeau With a style they most look positively grim in Strictly between us, entre-nous I hate women! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: harpmolly Date: 04 Aug 06 - 06:31 PM Daylia-- You think women's clothes are bad? Try being 4'8" and having to shop in the children's department. There's nothing like clothing that is designed to be grown out of. Shoddy craftsmanship, strings hanging out all over the place, not to mention the relative lack of anything affordable not made in some sweatshop in God-knows-where...it's enough to make me want to buy a damn sewing machine. I used to complain that having to shop in the kids' dept. meant having to deal with pink sparkly Barbie logos all over the place. Now, alas, it's even scarier--as has been mentioned, the Britneyization of girls' styles is starting younger and younger. I'm also put off by the great proliferation of sparkly shirts that say things like "Princess", "Spoiled Brat", "Daddy's Little Girl", etc. I mean, should we be glamorizing that sort of behavior? That said, I confess to having bought a shirt with a wicked-looking picture of Tinkerbell and the phrase "Perfect Pixie". Purely for the ironic value, of course. (OK, yes, and I also had a sassy Tinkerbell travel mug that said "I May Have Wings, But I'm No Angel". Unfortunately, it was a piece of crap.) Hmmm...better quit while I'm ahead...;) M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: Ebbie Date: 04 Aug 06 - 10:52 PM Years ago, Molly, my best friend was also so tiny she shopped in the kids' department. It wasn't easy for her- even shoes tended not to look adult. I remember she wore a lot of jeans. It must be harder today. At least then the shirts weren't cropped to show her belly button. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: *daylia* Date: 05 Aug 06 - 07:28 AM Wow - you have my sympathy, Molly. All those years I was grateful to be dressing sons, not daughters. The toughest I had to cope with were the baseball caps turned backwards and the pants so baggy they had to hold them up with their thumbs. But when I see what passes for girls/tweenies/teens "fashions" these days, I'm doubly grateful! The sexualization of children is disturbing indeed, and I, for one, don't pretend to understand it. What is it with adults these days?!? Parents, especially! Sexy styles beckon little girls, even at 6 yrs of age. As they entered the store, which caters to elementary-school girls, Keith was stunned at the offerings. She quickly laid down some rules: no midriffs, no micro- minis, no low-slung jeans, no tart-in- training T-shirts. "I'm a firm believer that girls and women of all ages should be able to wear whatever they want, but I'm not going to serve my daughter up on a platter," says Keith, who still can't believe she had to consider this issue as a kindergarten parent. Last fall, one of my very pretty little 6 year old beginners used to show up for her piano lessons in gauzy glittery see-thru camisoles (complete with tiny little 'bra' showing through), miniskirts, nylons, heels, makeup. :-O And she'd tell me, all downcast, about how 'fat' she thought she was too. Migod, what is WITH her parents?!? I shudder to think what styles/attitudes she'll have 'graduated' into, 10 years from now ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: freda underhill Date: 05 Aug 06 - 08:53 AM I read an excerpt from a biography of an Australian actor who was a cross-dresser. he explained how when he was little, his father was violent and used to terrorise the family. When his father was angry, he used to climg into the wardrobe in his mother's bedroom to hide, and used to cling on to her soft dresses for comfort. He believes this is why he became a cross-dresser as an adult - he finds the touch and softness of women's clothes comfortiung and protective. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: freda underhill Date: 05 Aug 06 - 08:54 AM oops, sorry about that typing!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: jacqui.c Date: 05 Aug 06 - 11:22 AM My six year old grandson loves shopping for clothes. When he was about three I was getting clothes for him to wear from his wardrobe. He turned down several items and, when I held up T-shirt and pants for inspection, he looked and said "Yes, but do they GO?". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 06 Aug 06 - 07:52 AM Dear *daylia*, I have to tell you that I really, really don't hate shopping because it's a "gendered activity". I hate it because it's often a waste of time and a source of frustration! The reality of modern consumer society can often reduce me to an apoplectic rage. The propaganda tells us that we have lots of 'choice' but in actual fact the average high street is full of identical shops trying to sell us rubbish that we don't need - and there is really very little choice. Until recently I worked in the R&D department of "fast moving consumer goods" company. The unspeakably arrogant shits in marketing were always telling us that we needed to find ways to fill "consumer needs". What actually happened was that they either copied what the competition was doing or converted the latest fad into product form and then manipulated the market research data to 'prove' that the consumer wanted the product ... anyway, needless to say I could go on and on about how much I hate 'marketing professionals' (excuse me while I spit!!!) so I'd better stop now! Apart from that, as a single man, I have to do all my own shopping or I'd be reduced to wearing rags and starving ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: *daylia* Date: 06 Aug 06 - 08:35 AM Until recently I worked in the R&D department of "fast moving consumer goods" company. The unspeakably arrogant shits in marketing were always telling us that we needed to find ways to fill "consumer needs". Shimrod, thanks for the inside scoop. I'm glad you're not suckered in by the ole 'woman's work' thing -- all too many people still are, from what I've seen, especially the older crowd (say 40 and up). And of course, single guys don't have that 'out', regardless of their age ... ;-) And I agree, shopping so often = disappointment, frustration and a big waste of time and energy - especially now that the markets are swamped with low-quality items manufactured in the far east. This is another reason it takes me so !!&&***@@!!! long to shop. I refuse to fork out my hard-earned money for over-priced cheaply-made badly-designed ill-fitting chintzy-looking crap guaranteed to fade, fray and fall apart at the first laundering. More often than not, I come home empty-handed and firmly resolved to make do with what I have these days. WHich means I'm spending less on clothes - fine by me! PLease give those marketing moguls a big hint from me - if you really want to 'fill consumer needs', try this: stock your stores with good quality, well-made, reasonably priced, attractively designed, durable items that are locally designed and manufactured. Believe it or not, supporting homegrown businesses is important to me! And if you absolutely MUST buy from China, check such things as colorfast dyes, double-stitched seams, launderable fabrics and, especially, zippers that are made to function more than once or twice. I swear, they must never have seen a zipper in China till they started exporting clothes for Westerners! It would also be helpful to include on the tags something like "The workers who produced this item earn a decent living wage of XXXXXX per year in a factory with high health and safety standards". AFTER you've made certain that's all true, of course! But that's enough of a rant for now. freda, jacqui - thanks for the stories. And jacqui - that grandson of yours will be attracting the girls like bees to honey someday. I can just see it coming! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: jacqui.c Date: 06 Aug 06 - 08:42 AM *daylia* - he's already doing it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: *daylia* Date: 06 Aug 06 - 08:45 AM Shoddy craftsmanship, strings hanging out all over the place, not to mention the relative lack of anything affordable not made in some sweatshop in God-knows-where...it's enough to make me want to buy a damn sewing machine. Molly, I want you to know I'm seriously considering your sewing machine idea. No kidding. That would side-step so many problems, and give me another 'creative outlet' too. I've discovered over the last few years that I must be old enough to honestly enjoy the peace and quiet of gardening now, for the first time in my life -- maybe I have enough time and patience for sewing now too. Ain't middle age wonderful! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: GUEST,Bee Date: 06 Aug 06 - 12:34 PM I bought a simple sewing machine ten years ago, having never used one before, taught myself to sew - it's pretty easy! I make most of my own shirts, light jackets and accessories. Jeans I still purchase, as they are the one article of womens clothing made in a sufficient range of sizes and fits for most women. However, I am amply endowed, chestwise, and the kinds of ugly crap available for upper wear for those of us with 'Big-uns' - well, I ain't wearin' it. I was lucky enough to end up making costumes for a local museum, and was taught how to make, size and alter patterns. The fit of my clothing now is just for me, and the fabrics are pretty and good quality. Of course, now I'm a fabric hoarder, just so you are warned of the downside to sewing your own. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: JohnInKansas Date: 07 Aug 06 - 03:03 AM another reason women shop for clothes more often than men ... Some years ago a very good friend (female) offered the opinion that a reason for more frequent shopping for clothes by women was that "their shape changes more often." I don't recall taking her comment seriously at the time, and would hesitate to suggest that it means much now; but I can see some plausibility that there might be an influence(?) The emphasis on juvenile and adolescent "fashions" is quite obviously a result of "money following the market." Growing persons do need regular replacements of clothing to maintain proper fit; and it appears that the constant rotation of fads and fetishes is a deliberate attempt to prevent "hand me down" passage of juvenile clothing to the next generation, in an effort to make sure that each new size, for each person, is a new purchase. As Shimrod suggests, the marketing The original Zip-Loc baggie reached 12% "market penetration" before it became literally impossible to buy a bag without a "zipper" on it. (A recent count at my local grocers found 38 different "brands" of 1-quart bags and 19 1-gallon bags, all with "zippers" and NONE of any size without. Since the zipper is not the best thing for all uses I sometimes buy the ziplocs and cut the zipper off for some uses, since all other kinds have disappeared. This isn't a totally satisfactory solution, since to support the "zipper" the bag has to be 3 times as thick as is optimum for freezer storage; but it's the best available. Shoes for male wearers are another striking example of the disappearance of choice. They all look alike. They all weigh in at 4.9 pounds (or more) per pair. They're all ugly and hurt my feet. The situation is likely just as bad for women's shoes, but the more common complaint I hear is that they don't stock sizes large enough for most of my adult female friends (so they only intend to sell to children?). John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: *daylia* Date: 07 Aug 06 - 08:44 AM Bee, this feels mighty strange. Deja vu or something. My mother's name is Bea. *shiver shiver* I think it's an omen .... Between my mom and her mom, most of our clothes were handmade as kids (adn there were 6 of us, no small accomplishment!) Your warning reminds me of what it was like to grow up in a 'sewing household' - full of patterns, fabrics, notions, pins and measuring tapes. But I was never interested in sewing, myself. It seemed such an 'old lady thing' -- YIKES! See? I'm not only subconsciously sexist, but 'agist' too! Egads ... see what 'issues' lie latent, just waiting to be discovered, in our clothing! Scary ... Over the years I've regretted that I never learned sewing at my grandmother's knee. She didn't have the patience to teach me -- I didn't have the slightest inclination to learn. I was much too busy riding bikes, climbing trees and catching frogs. But I've seen the pictures of my mom when she was 3 or 4, way up north of Edmonton Alberta in the winter - wearing the lovely little hooded fur-lined winter jackets, leggings, mitts, knee-high moccs that my grandmother made, by hand, from the wild animals my grandfather hunted. While the rest of the world was starving and reeling from the Great Depression in the 30's, my mom's family were literally living like kings way up there in the frozen North -- because they still knew HOW to live. How to meet their own needs independently, with nothing but a clean river, a garden and a forest. Without retailers or mass marketers or globalizers. What I wouldn't give .... And you're absolutely right, Bee -- sewing is a skill, a science and an art. I have a long LONG way to go before I could count on it for a wardrobe! Thanks for the encouragement! I can already do easy repairs by hand, but I've never used a machine or worked with a pattern, least of all alter one. And I'd need to do that too -- wow, for once I might have a collection of tops with wide enough shoulders and long enough arms to fit properly! (My problem up top is not the size of my bumps but the length of my bones). And slacks that actually fit properly at both ends? What a dream!! (Usually, pants that fit my waist/hips are too short in the legs. Except men's pants -- which are uncomfortable up top! AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!) I always figured I'm a fairly 'normal' build for a woman (5'6" and around 130 lbs) so you'd think I'd be fairly easy to fit too, but WRONG! I'm just not 'standard' enough -- average height and weight for women is 5'4" and around 140 lbs. So, typically women's clothes are made for shorter people with bigger bumps. And I'm not quite tall enough for the "Ms Tall" specialty shops - at least my sisters, at 5'9 or so, have that option! Anyways, sorry to go on and on here thinkin out loud. Thanks for all the inspiration! And you're right, John, women are harder to fit in the first place, and the feminine silhouette tends to change more often (ie pregnancy). So we do spend more time, energy and money on clothing, whether we like it or not. ANd enjoy your little sweetie to the max, jacqui! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Cross dressing' - a form of sexism? From: Liz the Squeak Date: 07 Aug 06 - 08:53 AM Long ago I came to the conclusion that if I wanted clothes that fitted and were comfortable, I'd be better off making them myself, which is what I now do. I've been blessed with an hourglass figure, it's just that most of the sand has slipped to the bottom. My clothing budget is miniscule compared with Limpits... she's had more spent on her this past 3 weeks than I spend on myself in 3 months! But yes... I am now a cloth horder. LTS |
