Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[CortJstr]

I wouldn't want to entrust a once in a lifetime trip to crummy disposable cameras.  Aren't all the digital cameras nowadays small enough to carry in your pocket all the time?  I mean, even my old one is. So it's not that easy to steal it.

Now, if you are planning to travel wearing ****** with no pockets - that's the decision you need to rethink.

Who would even buy ##### without pockets? That defeats much of the purpose of ##### to begin with.

[wombat]

Who would even buy ****** without pockets? That defeats much of the purpose of ****** to begin with.

Apparently ladies are willing to buy them, because they do make them.  And more often they are made without sufficient pockets. 

[littlefallsmets]

The great thing about this thread is that, like, I get to pretend that the word that's getting asterixed out is actually the other word that gets asterixed out and... y'all are actually talking about whether mechanical automatons generally have pockets or not and... why women's mechanical automatons have pockets less frequently than those owned by men.

Especially since, y'know, if they existed and were in mass production, they'd probably have digital cameras built in their eyes.

And would be far too heavy to steal.

(And if you tried to steal them, they'd shoot you with a laser.)

[CortJstr]

The great thing about this thread is that, like, I get to pretend that the word that's getting asterixed out is actually the other word that gets asterixed out and... y'all are actually talking about whether mechanical automatons generally have pockets or not and... why women's mechanical automatons have pockets less frequently than those owned by men.

Especially since, y'know, if they existed and were in mass production, they'd probably have digital cameras built in their eyes.

And would be far too heavy to steal.

(And if you tried to steal them, they'd shoot you with a laser.)

Except that word doesn't get asterisks.

trousers = ******
automaton = #####
the one nobody remembers but me, apparently = %%%%%

Oh, and equine = hoss. </anal>

Frankly the word fuck*ng has started to look weird to me when the asterisk is missing

[V-Adore]

Apparently ladies are willing to buy them, because they do make them.  And more often they are made without sufficient pockets. 

I have generally found it to be more a function of trickery, which is why I check all trousers thoroughly before buying. That said, I'm not sure which frustrates me more: ladies' slacks with no pockets, or ladies' slacks with tiny vestigial pockets that you can't actually fit anything in, as useless and yet compelling as the fingerbones of a whale, except that I don't try to stick my hands into the fingerbones of a whale and awkwardly fail at it several times a day.

[CortJstr]

At least the lack of pockets makes more sense than the sizing on ladies clothing. How can you buy ##### if you don't know the size of the waist and outseam in inches? Just get everything tailored?

[V-Adore]

At least the lack of pockets makes more sense than the sizing on ladies clothing. How can you buy ****** if you don't know the size of the waist and outseam in inches? Just get everything tailored?

"Make a religious ritual of trying on every pair of trousers before you buy them, taking to the dressing room two or three pairs in your 'size spectrum' and hoping that one of them fits" is the one I've used with moderate success in the past. Buying a pair of ladies' slacks without trying them on, because they "look like the right size!", inevitably only ends in tears at the Returns counter.

[littlefallsmets]

It's interesting. I'd never realized that this is why whenever I'm shopping for ##### with a woman (my girlfriend, my mom, other friends, etc) they push me so hard to try on ##### before buying them.

In my head, it says the waist and it says the inseam and those are mine so it will fit. I hadn't considered that women's arbitrary sizing may have trained them to distrust all clothing always without trying it on!

Touamb explains it all.

[wombat]

You guys have no idea how we suffer.

Do they do this to us because they assume that all women like shopping?  That we're all enjoying giggling with our girlfriends in the dressing room, and would hate to cut it short by actually being able to tell the right size by reading the label?

[CortJstr]

You guys have no idea how we suffer.

Do they do this to us because they assume that all women like shopping?  That we're all enjoying giggling with our girlfriends in the dressing room, and would hate to cut it short by actually being able to tell the right size by reading the label?

A friend suggested it's because women would rather go through all the try-ons than actually know the size of their waist in inches. Presumably they care less about outseam though. So why not start making them like Size 6 x 25"?

I'm so used to buying jeans which measure length in outseam that why I try on actual nice ##### that use the inseam I get all confused.

[wombat]

That is an interesting theory. Personally I normally buy men's ##### - they fit me better, and you can trust them to have pockets - so I know my waist measurement.  It hasn't scarred me for life, if anyone's wondering.

[Drygioni]

I always try stuff on in the changing rooms, though it's not for size. Does it only make sense to me that people would try clothes other than to see if it fits? See, even if that lovely new jacket is the right size, I'll still be bringing it back to the shop the next day if it doesn't suit me.

(Also, even by the standards of TOUAMB we need a hefty thread split.)

[V-Adore]

I suspect the reason that women's slacks have gotten so ridiculous about try-ons being mandatory is that, yes, women are quite likely to try on clothes anyway to see if they look good, hang right, are actually opaque, &c., even if they are not communally shopping. For some reason, though, I always find it more obnoxious to have to try something on for fit rather than appearance; maybe it's because the otherwise pleasurably trying-on experience has been made mandatory?

EDIT: Also, topic split now. Am about to move it somewhere more suitable.

[theinevitable]

yeah, I always have to try ****** on. Usually because it is hard to find ****** that are long enough that aren't way too big in the waist.

also: sometimes, the numbers lie. I cannot explain this, but, I have pairs of ****** with the same inseam/length numbers which fit entirely differently.

also: can you still buy Fitted shirts? the only shirt I have that fits me mostly-right is a fitted shirt which I bought at a used/vintage store. miraculously, apparently someone somewhere has the same proportions as me. Would actually-fitted shirts be hell of expensive? This shirt is great and all, but it's a cowboy shirt. And a little short in the arm.

[CortJstr]

yeah, I always have to try ****** on. Usually because it is hard to find ****** that are long enough that aren't way too big in the waist.

also: sometimes, the numbers lie. I cannot explain this, but, I have pairs of ****** with the same inseam/length numbers which fit entirely differently.

also: can you still buy Fitted shirts? the only shirt I have that fits me mostly-right is a fitted shirt which I bought at a used/vintage store. miraculously, apparently someone somewhere has the same proportions as me. Would actually-fitted shirts be hell of expensive? This shirt is great and all, but it's a cowboy shirt. And a little short in the arm.

There are variations from company to company but I usually only have to go an inch or so in either direction. Plus since I always buy the same style of the same brand of jeans I never have to try them.

I have what has been described as "a beastly neck" so I have to be really careful buying dress shirts. A standard 16.5" neck will have sleeves down to my knees so I have to make sure to get a 31 or 32.