Fashion

[lrbrb]

I think it’s interesting that the hosts, when they’re showing a top with a hi-low hem top, usually say something about it covering the backside when everyone has one but the front part of the body which only a woman has is not covered by many of those tops.  I confess I’m not a fan of hi/lo hems and think that may be why.  Has anyone else thought about this?

[Shanus]

---

@lrbrb wrote:

I think it’s interesting that the hosts, when they’re showing a top with a hi-low hem top, usually say something about it covering the backside when everyone has one but the front part of the body which only a woman has is not covered by many of those tops.  I confess I’m not a fan of hi/lo hems and think that may be why.  Has anyone else thought about this?

---

@lrbrb  Yes, but didn’t know quite how to word it. If I have on very tight jeans or jeggings, my behind is fine, but I’d like my “lady parts” covered.

[tends2dogs]

Lisa Robertson used to address this by saying "this top covers where your legs meet your body".  I always thought that was a good way to describe it.

[wilma]

I think if the fit of the pant is really tight the front as well as the back should be covered. I have seen some super tight pants on the Q lately. I don’t like how tight some of these stretch pants are in the front. It seems a longer tunic top all around would be more flattering than a high low hem that shows all your front parts. 

[haddon9]

I've gotten used to wearing tunics, sharkbite or hi/low hemlines all the time now.  I agree if bottoms are tight then that area should be covered but I tend not to wear tight pants so I like hi/low hems.

Remember not that long ago when most tops were short...most came to the hips and some even tucked tops in?

[FranandZoe]

I like how Susan Graver's tops are low and lower instead of high-low.  Just wish they came in petites.

[I like celery]

If the pants are the correct size, and not giving someone a "camel toe," why would you need to cover the "front part" of the pant?  

I understand if someone isn't comfortable with how their "backside" looks, and may want to wear something to cover it, but if someone is wearing pants that fit well, why do you need to cover the "front side?" 

[ALRATIBA]

---

@lrbrb wrote:

I think it’s interesting that the hosts, when they’re showing a top with a hi-low hem top, usually say something about it covering the backside when everyone has one but the front part of the body which only a woman has is not covered by many of those tops.  I confess I’m not a fan of hi/lo hems and think that may be why.  Has anyone else thought about this?

---

@lrbrb

And, usually the same person who's selling the tops that cover the backside was just moments before was selling pants that accentuated the backside that he/she just covered.

[Q4u]

I have a couple of these tops but I'm tired of them already and really don't think they look good on everyone..... 

[151949]

---

@I like celery wrote:

If the pants are the correct size, and not giving someone a "camel toe," why would you need to cover the "front part" of the pant?  

I understand if someone isn't comfortable with how their "backside" looks, and may want to wear something to cover it, but if someone is wearing pants that fit well, why do you need to cover the "front side?" 

---

I think the part you are not understanding is they wear very tight pants that give a look in the front that's not at all attractive ( camel toe). They buy pants with high spandex counts so they can be s-t-r-e-t-c-h- e-d to get them on then suck back in til they are like skin on a sausage once in place.