> I agree about early 70s clothes. I remember that time well for
> various reasons, and although I guess we all thought we looked good at
> the time it isn't a style I'd like to see return.

Signature
Walking on . . .
Laurie in Maine
207/110 60 inches of attitude!
Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03
personally I think the whole "fashion" that's out there now is just
disgusting. I have *never* in my life seen so many unflattering pairs of
jeans in my life. My daughter included. We went to the mall the other
day and EVERY 13-20 something year old girl was wearing jeans 2 sizes
too small, flared leg and low rise, and almost everyone of them had no
business wearing them as their tummies were not as attractive as they
thought they looked lol.
As a cowgirl(that looks really stupid when typed, but that's what I am I
guess) I am sooo much more comfortable in my higher rise, boot cut or
even straight-legged jeans(I do clip the cuff so that it fits around my
shoe/boot and it frays like I'm a college student lol)
Susan
280/192/165(mini)/140
^ new sig :)
> > I agree about early 70s clothes. I remember that time well for
> > various reasons, and although I guess we all thought we looked good at
> > the time it isn't a style I'd like to see return.
>
> Is it just me or is anyone else totally uninterested in wearing bell-
> bottoms or flared pants again? (it's the short thing again!)
SnugBear - 21 Jun 2004 14:50 GMT
> As a cowgirl(that looks really stupid when typed, but that's what I am
> I guess) I am sooo much more comfortable in my higher rise, boot cut
> or even straight-legged jeans(I do clip the cuff so that it fits
> around my shoe/boot and it frays like I'm a college student lol)
I *really* need some cowboy boots. Chances of finding any in Maine?
Slim. There was a great pair at a yardsale last week but they were one
size too small :-(

Signature
Walking on . . .
Laurie in Maine
207/110 60 inches of attitude!
Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03
Alex - 21 Jun 2004 16:26 GMT
>personally I think the whole "fashion" that's out there now is just
>disgusting. I have *never* in my life seen so many unflattering pairs of
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>280/192/165(mini)/140
>^ new sig :)
I'm not a fan AT ALL of the flared or boot cut jeans. I have a small
waist and some hips, and it tends to do nothing for my body, I am much
better with a straight leg. However, I am loving the low rise pants.
Not ulra low or anything like that, and I make sure my belly is
covered at all times, but the low rise is a god send for us gals who
have tiny waists. Regular jeans, etc are huge in the waist to fit my
can, and I have always had an aversion to belts.
Ally
212/181/160
Chris Braun - 22 Jun 2004 00:13 GMT
>I'm not a fan AT ALL of the flared or boot cut jeans. I have a small
>waist and some hips, and it tends to do nothing for my body, I am much
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>have tiny waists. Regular jeans, etc are huge in the waist to fit my
>can, and I have always had an aversion to belts.
I'm with you, Alex, on liking the slightly low rise pants. While I
wouldn't call my waist "tiny", it's apparently smaller proportionately
than would be expected with my hips. (I have -- sadly -- a rather
flat butt, but I have wide hipbones.)
Chris
262/144/ (145-150)
Beverly - 22 Jun 2004 12:26 GMT
> >I'm not a fan AT ALL of the flared or boot cut jeans. I have a small
> >waist and some hips, and it tends to do nothing for my body, I am much
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Chris
> 262/144/ (145-150)
Those slightly low rise pants work well for those of us without waists, too.
I find most pants that fit me in the hip area are too small around the
waist. The low rise fit much better.
Beverly