Disturbing trend in women's fashion....

914Driver wrote: No shorts? What are they wearing around PoopLand?

Don't need clothes in the kitchen.

EastCoastMojo wrote:

Streetwiseguy wrote: Not sure- do you want the shorts with hair hanging out the top, bottom or both? Those just look 70's waist height to me. Now if we could just get women to leave the cast iron kevlar reinforced breast shelves at home, I'd be happy.

But if we don't wear the cast-iron reinforced boulder holders, then our boobs end up down at our waist by the time we're 40. I actually like the olive/brown shorts with the cuffs, that outfit reminds me of Laura Croft without the unrealistic boobage. But then, I'm not an old guy lookin' for free cheeks to ogle. YMMV

Did you not see the study that came out of France that shows wearing a bra may encourage more sagging than would happen naturally?

EastCoastMojo wrote:

Streetwiseguy wrote: Not sure- do you want the shorts with hair hanging out the top, bottom or both? Those just look 70's waist height to me. Now if we could just get women to leave the cast iron kevlar reinforced breast shelves at home, I'd be happy.

But if we don't wear the cast-iron reinforced boulder holders, then our boobs end up down at our waist by the time we're 40. I actually like the olive/brown shorts with the cuffs, that outfit reminds me of Laura Croft without the unrealistic boobage. But then, I'm not an old guy lookin' for free cheeks to ogle. YMMV

Did you not see the study that came out of France that shows wearing a bra may encourage more sagging than would happen naturally?

No, I'm not as current on ladies fashion as you guys are.

914Driver wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Mom shorts? Really? WTF??? Has anyone else noticed this?

I'm confused by your concern. Is this a bad thing? All the wrong people wear spandex, so I'm all for the shorts. No shorts? What are they wearing around PoopLand?

100% Okay with shorts. SHORT-er the better. "Return to the 80's vintage mom Jorts" not so much.

Yes, I noticed the mom short trend, not sure why, but I did. It has not of yet reached my little slice of no where but I am sure it will hit sooner than later. I had Brooke Shields flash backs to the 80's the first time I saw the waist line on these new/old style shorts. I admit to liking a lower rise short on women but to each their own I guess.

Wait a minute here Poop. You are telling me that you let the gawdawful Ugg boot thing slide but some shorts rile you up?

It's OK if their feet look like Ookla the Mok but god forbid some somewhat sensible shorts come along.

ditchdigger wrote: It's OK if their feet look like Ookla the Mok

As someone who was there at the birth of Cartoon Network (and worked it for nearly 20 years), I cannot express with words how delighted I am to see an Ookla reference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhAobPugvsk

And I'm kinda "meh" on the shorts. People wear what they wear.

So you guys p[refer the low rise, eh?

Low rise-great. Muffin top-NO!

Streetwiseguy wrote: So you guys p[refer the low rise, eh?

Not just no, but HELL NO. I don't understand why women would want to wear something that makes their ass/waist/hips look horrid .

Last week, I noticed a few people of the female persuasion wearing pants and shorts with higher waistlines. It was good to see actual curves, for a change.

poopshovel wrote:

EastCoastMojo wrote:

Streetwiseguy wrote: Not sure- do you want the shorts with hair hanging out the top, bottom or both? Those just look 70's waist height to me. Now if we could just get women to leave the cast iron kevlar reinforced breast shelves at home, I'd be happy.

But if we don't wear the cast-iron reinforced boulder holders, then our boobs end up down at our waist by the time we're 40. I actually like the olive/brown shorts with the cuffs, that outfit reminds me of Laura Croft without the unrealistic boobage. But then, I'm not an old guy lookin' for free cheeks to ogle. YMMV

Old. Young. No dude likes halfway-up-the-back non ass-flattering, ass-pancake-making shorts. No dude. No matter how much he tries to convince you he does.

A nice ass is a nice ass. The style of clothing don't make a damn bit of difference.

Ian F wrote:

poopshovel wrote:

EastCoastMojo wrote:

Streetwiseguy wrote: Not sure- do you want the shorts with hair hanging out the top, bottom or both? Those just look 70's waist height to me. Now if we could just get women to leave the cast iron kevlar reinforced breast shelves at home, I'd be happy.

But if we don't wear the cast-iron reinforced boulder holders, then our boobs end up down at our waist by the time we're 40. I actually like the olive/brown shorts with the cuffs, that outfit reminds me of Laura Croft without the unrealistic boobage. But then, I'm not an old guy lookin' for free cheeks to ogle. YMMV

Old. Young. No dude likes halfway-up-the-back non ass-flattering, ass-pancake-making shorts. No dude. No matter how much he tries to convince you he does.

A nice ass is a nice ass. The style of clothing don't make a damn bit of difference.

Here here!

I know better than to get myself tangle up in this one...

The only part of it that bugs me is the return of the '70s "waist at navel level" thing. Worn at actual waist level? Sure, fine, OK, doesn't look bad. Worn at navel level? Well do you just want to look bad or did you also intend to remind me of everyone's grandmothers?

Daisy Duke and Ferrah Fawcett could barely keep these things from pre-emptively killing our boners, sure you wanna try these, ladies?

Appearance aside (see above), you guys realize that fashion is just about money, right? Women don't actually need to look good, they just need to be convinced to throw away everything they bought last year and buy new stuff this year. Lather, rinse, repeat.

It's like making the mistake of believing that GM actually cares about cars. It's all just product to them. They could be selling toasters for all that they care, so long as they are selling.

grassroots toasters?

Personally I agree.. I would rather seem some beautiful people in unappealing shorts than unappealing people in beautiful shorts

EastCoastMojo wrote:

Streetwiseguy wrote: Not sure- do you want the shorts with hair hanging out the top, bottom or both? Those just look 70's waist height to me. Now if we could just get women to leave the cast iron kevlar reinforced breast shelves at home, I'd be happy.

But if we don't wear the cast-iron reinforced boulder holders, then our boobs end up down at our waist by the time we're 40.

One of the benefits of being modestly endowed... is that they will never reach my waist.

mad_machine wrote: grassroots toasters? Personally I agree.. I would rather seem some beautiful people in unappealing shorts than unappealing people in beautiful shorts

I +1'd you, but I'll go one further: the most important thing is that a woman wears clothes that make her feel beautiful. Long/short/tight/loose really don't matter as much as how she feels. The way a confident woman carries herself....well, let's just say it can make an average woman look gorgeous.

If a woman has athletic, but short, legs the short shorts are the only hope at making their legs look great. Short shorts that end just below the glute carry just the glute shape (round and out straight back). Then you can then see the entire hamstring starting from where it tapers in smaller under the glute, down to the thicker part in the middle, and down to where it tapers in thin again at the knee. Lots of great curves in a short distance and gives the illusion of longer legs.

Long shorts on the other hand go straight down from the largest part of the glute and end at the largest part of the hamstring. Turns the legs into a fat, non-shapely, tube. Combine that with a long area of fabric and you get a very stumpy looking girl.

MrJoshua wrote: If a woman has athletic, but short, legs the short shorts are the only hope at making their legs look great. Short shorts that end just below the glute carry just the glute shape (round and out straight back). Then you can then see the entire hamstring starting from where it tapers in smaller under the glute, down to the thicker part in the middle, and down to where it tapers in thin again at the knee. Lots of great curves in a short distance and gives the illusion of longer legs. Long shorts on the other hand go straight down from the largest part of the glute and end at the largest part of the hamstring. Turns the legs into a fat, non-shapely, tube. Combine that with a long area of fabric and you get a very stumpy looking girl.

You have obviously spent quite some time studying this subject.

Streetwiseguy wrote:

MrJoshua wrote: If a woman has athletic, but short, legs the short shorts are the only hope at making their legs look great. Short shorts that end just below the glute carry just the glute shape (round and out straight back). Then you can then see the entire hamstring starting from where it tapers in smaller under the glute, down to the thicker part in the middle, and down to where it tapers in thin again at the knee. Lots of great curves in a short distance and gives the illusion of longer legs. Long shorts on the other hand go straight down from the largest part of the glute and end at the largest part of the hamstring. Turns the legs into a fat, non-shapely, tube. Combine that with a long area of fabric and you get a very stumpy looking girl.

You have obviously spent quite some time studying this subject.

scholarship is a good thing. I need to go.....study

In reply to Streetwiseguy:

Personal trainer with a very athletic short legged wife. :D

EastCoastMojo wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Old. Young. No dude likes halfway-up-the-back non ass-flattering, ass-pancake-making shorts. No dude. No matter how much he tries to convince you he does.

That's why I wear what I want and don't give a damn what any dude thinks about my ass.

Amen! Is it really that difficult for people to understand that sometimes people dress a certain way not because they think it is the most attractive to others, but simply because that is the way they like to dress? I wear these shorts. I think they are cute. I am fully aware that my butt could look better in something else, but I don't care. It is not my (or any woman's) job to ensure that booty-oglers are fully satisfied with their viewing experience. That's the internet's job. I'm sure you all know where to go for that.

And as for the whole fashion-industry-just-trying-to-make-money thing, that may be true. However, they really screwed themselves with this trend because thrift stores have these shorts in abundance and they usually cost about $1. Huzzah! Affordable womens' clothing!

Most of the women I know would rather be taken seriously than be the subject of some dude's weird fantasies.