Just an observation - Page 2

Caaareful Shopper · ‎10-09-2012

@151949 wrote:
@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.

@151949 But the OP was not expressly talking about very tight pants. I’m in agreement with @lrbrb that for pants that are regular fitting, therefore not very, very tight, selling the point of the high/low hem is particularly for the rear view. The front would not need to be covered as long as one is not wearing pants that give the camel toe look (I hate this expression, but cannot find another for this forum).

lrbrb · ‎07-05-2010

@haddon9 wrote:
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?

I do remember. The purpose of my post was to point out how odd it is to me to care more about covering the back as if it were more important than the front to keep covered.

Trinity11 · ‎11-16-2014

@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 like celeryI have no issues with my backside because I carry my weight in the tummy area. I no longer have a flat stomach so am self-conscious of that. So the high low tops are just not a good look for me.

ALRATIBA · ‎07-15-2016

@Q4u wrote:
I have a couple of these tops but I'm tired of them already and really don't think they look good on everyone.....

@Q4u

I have quite a few of them ... how good they look depends on your body type. I have wide shoulders and no curves.

The tops hang perfectly from the shoulders and it's a really very good look for me and my body! I just took out some things to wear to a function I have this afternoon ... straight leg pants and hi-lo top.

151949 · ‎03-09-2010

@Caaareful Shopper wrote:
@151949 wrote:
@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.

@151949 But the OP was not expressly talking about very tight pants. I’m in agreement with @lrbrb that for pants that are regular fitting, therefore not very, very tight, selling the point of the high/low hem is particularly for the rear view. The front would not need to be covered as long as one is not wearing pants that give the camel toe look (I hate this expression, but cannot find another for this forum).

But I wasn't responding to the OP - I was responding to the post I quoted. See how that works?

151949 · ‎03-09-2010

@ALRATIBA wrote:
@Q4u wrote:
I have a couple of these tops but I'm tired of them already and really don't think they look good on everyone.....
@Q4u

I have quite a few of them ... how good they look depends on your body type. I have wide shoulders and no curves.

The tops hang perfectly from the shoulders and it's a really very good look for me and my body! I just took out some things to wear to a function I have this afternoon ... straight leg pants and hi-lo top.

I like them too.

SeaMaiden · ‎03-10-2010

hmmm... never thought about covering one part or the other... what is wrong with our parts???

Pook · ‎03-20-2010

If the stretchy pants are of a good material and well made then they accentuate nothing on the front of the body even though very tight.

Caaareful Shopper · ‎10-09-2012

@151949 wrote:
@Caaareful Shopper wrote:
@151949 wrote:
@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.

@151949 But the OP was not expressly talking about very tight pants. I’m in agreement with @lrbrb that for pants that are regular fitting, therefore not very, very tight, selling the point of the high/low hem is particularly for the rear view. The front would not need to be covered as long as one is not wearing pants that give the camel toe look (I hate this expression, but cannot find another for this forum).
But I wasn't responding to the OP - I was responding to the post I quoted. See how that works?

@151949I mistakenly used the wrong nic. I correctly refered my response to the post you quoted, but I used the wrong nic, it should have been @I like celery instead. My mistake for the confusion.

But I cannot leave this response without pointing out that your "see how that works" was childishly unnecessary. We were pleasantly talking about high/low hems. Does that really bring out the nastiness in you?

suzyQ3 · ‎03-09-2010

@151949 wrote:
@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.

@151949@, what you are not understanding iw thqt @I like celery (for some reason, this is not being highlighted) made it very clear that she was NOT talking about pants that were so tight as to create the infamous camel toe.

Also, the OP said nothing about tight pants.

~Who in the world am I? Ah, that's the great puzzle~ Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland