From: kparker%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Parker)
Subject: Misc ...
Date: 9 Jan 93 13:23:18 MST
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

Andrew writes 

> [silk hose, presumably in suntan or nude] ... As a male, I find them
> very attractive on a nicely figured lady ...

in reply to,

>> The only reason I don't wear "NORMAL" nylons is that they are plain
>> ugly.  Who ever heard of "suntan" legs in winter or of "nude" that
>> does not match your face tone?

As a male, I find ``nicely figured'' women attractive no matter what
they wear (though, as an aside, I only find ``ladies'' attractive in
an uninteresting sort of way).  Suntan panty-hose can add to the
attraction.

But I primarily agree with the sentiment of the first post.  The point
is that ``normal'' hose (or stockings) are less attractive or more
ugly than the colored and/or patterned hose that ``everyone'' is
actually waring.  The difference depends, primarily on rather the
women wearing the hose is attractive or ugly ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARTER - alt.fashion includes:

> manufacturing techniques & equipment (including new CAD/CAM
> methods) ...

Sounds interesting ... Not my professional area, but close enough so
that I'd like to hear more ... I'm particularly fascinated by:

1) Flat cutting technology.

2) Piece gluing techniques and less labor intensive sewing techniques.

3) Tightly-coupled demand driven manufacturing.

I've been told, however, that these are all only academic issues.  In
practice, no-one does high-tech manufacturing of clothes, because it
costs more to buy AND TO MAINTAIN a robots than to buy and maintain a
Chinese Prisoner (rather or not you buy a traditional prisoner or
merely a prisoner in some more spiritual sense) ... This, however, is
a different topic ... I'm interested even if at the moment this is only
and academic topic.  After all fashion is no less interesting, because
it's more aesthetic than practical ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hellen writes

> In some stores I found a range of sizes called "demi-petite." A
> saleslady explained that these were for short petites.

{Grin} ... Yea, I've noticed this too.  In the U.S. larger department
stores seem to believe that petite means, ``15 to 30 pound over
weight''.  Not that it means short AND plump (a pejorative though more
understandable use of the term), but that it means over weight with no
reference to height.  By contrast smaller specialty stores (e.g., the
type typical of ``Yupified'' downtown districts) are more likely to
use the term to mean short with no reference to weight.

The only solution I see is to simply not shop at Sears, J.C. Pennies,
and the like.  I.M.H.O. the country would be better if the such stores
went out of business anyway, though I do have sympathy (as someone
whose first professional love was analog electronics, maybe even
empathy) for the employees of large department stores who are being
hurt by the long term decline of sales (not withstanding the recent
good Christmas showing, except at Sears which failed to have a good
Christmas even this year).  But shopping at such stores, not
withstanding there unresponsiveness to customer's needs and desires,
doesn't really help the employees; at best it prolongs there misery.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken
Newsgroups: alt.fashion