[OT] Age Appropriate Dress?

cybercat wrote:
"-L." wrote in message
ups.com...

Enfilade wrote:

snip

Workout wear and t-shirts, the difference being that a "Juicies" brand
tracksuit is $300, whereas I got a nice velour set at Stitches for $20.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Some people simply have too much money.


Or, it could be that you just have too little.

Certainly more than you do, Miss History Major.

-L.

CatNipped wrote:
"Enfilade" wrote in message
ps.com...

I'm watching "The View" and one of their "hot topics" was whether
women should stop wearing certain types of clothing as they get
older (the example used was women who were over 40 shouldn't wear
"Juicies" work-out
clothes.

You'll have to clue me in on this. I don't know what "Juicies" are.


Workout wear and t-shirts, the difference being that a "Juicies"
brand tracksuit is $300, whereas I got a nice velour set at Stitches
for $20. ***

I was ill a few years ago and lost a lot of weight. I was being
sized for some kind of bracelet or watch and had to get a "large"
size, much to the surprise of the sizer. I told her I had big
bones. She said, "I used to think "big boned" was just how some
people said "Fat" but you don't have any fat on you and yet the
diameter of your wrist is really big..."

You simply cannot start with the bodyframe of a Mack truck and expect
to build a sportscar on it

(At 130 pounds, friends and family thought I looked "Frighteningly
anorexic." People always presume I'm 30 lbs lighter than I really
am.) --Fil

I certainly couldn't have used that as an excuse - every inch on me
was something I shoved down my throat! I have what Ben calls "itty
bitty birdie bones". My wrist is 5 3/4" around (I have to take out
*ALL* the extra links in watch bands and they *STILL* don't fit tight
enough). I wear a size 4 ring.

I'm down to 125lb at 5'5" and I still look a bit chubby around the
middle and upper arms - the ideal weight for my height and my frame
starts at 110lb which, given my teeny tiny bones, I should be at. My
"range" is 110lb to 125lb, so I'm *just* within my correct weight
range.

I don't know what charts you're looking at, but that's really, really
low. The general guide is 100 lbs for 5 foot and 5 lbs for every inch
over 5 foot, so you are just right. Under 125 for 5'5" is underweight,
IMO and allows for absolutely NO muscle tone whatsoever.
--
Britta
"There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast." -- Unknown
Check out pictures of Vino at:
http://photos.yahoo.com/badwilson click on the Vino album

jmcquown wrote:
I'm much more comfortable in dresses, as a rule. At my last job the dress
was "business casual" so most women came to work in slacks. I chose to wear
dresses and skirts. I just feel less restricted in them.

Jill

I was the same way when I wore business clothing - skirts always seemed
more comfortable to me, but part of that was the summers were so hot
and we weren't allowed to wear shorts in the lab (but skirts were ok -
go figure). I never wore jeans to work, not even on casual day - I
just sort of felt that was disrespectful.

-L.

"dopekitty" wrote in message
news:v8gDf.149325$AP5.22780@edtnps84...
Yoj wrote:
He
feels that women should always wear dresses or skirts and men should
wear
skirts and ties.

hehe.. really? skirts and ties or kilts and ties?

Kristy
giggling

LOL! I guess that was a freudian slip. I'd love to see him in a skirt.

Joy

"badwilson" wrote in message
...
CatNipped wrote:
"Enfilade" wrote in message
ps.com...

I'm watching "The View" and one of their "hot topics" was whether
women should stop wearing certain types of clothing as they get
older (the example used was women who were over 40 shouldn't wear
"Juicies" work-out
clothes.

You'll have to clue me in on this. I don't know what "Juicies" are.


Workout wear and t-shirts, the difference being that a "Juicies"
brand tracksuit is $300, whereas I got a nice velour set at Stitches
for $20. ***

I was ill a few years ago and lost a lot of weight. I was being
sized for some kind of bracelet or watch and had to get a "large"
size, much to the surprise of the sizer. I told her I had big
bones. She said, "I used to think "big boned" was just how some
people said "Fat" but you don't have any fat on you and yet the
diameter of your wrist is really big..."

You simply cannot start with the bodyframe of a Mack truck and expect
to build a sportscar on it

(At 130 pounds, friends and family thought I looked "Frighteningly
anorexic." People always presume I'm 30 lbs lighter than I really
am.) --Fil

I certainly couldn't have used that as an excuse - every inch on me
was something I shoved down my throat! I have what Ben calls "itty
bitty birdie bones". My wrist is 5 3/4" around (I have to take out
*ALL* the extra links in watch bands and they *STILL* don't fit tight
enough). I wear a size 4 ring.

I'm down to 125lb at 5'5" and I still look a bit chubby around the
middle and upper arms - the ideal weight for my height and my frame
starts at 110lb which, given my teeny tiny bones, I should be at. My
"range" is 110lb to 125lb, so I'm *just* within my correct weight
range.

I don't know what charts you're looking at, but that's really, really low.
The general guide is 100 lbs for 5 foot and 5 lbs for every inch over 5
foot, so you are just right. Under 125 for 5'5" is underweight, IMO and
allows for absolutely NO muscle tone whatsoever.

It's usually given as a range to accomodate bone structure. Since bones
weigh quite a lot, if you have large bones you have to count that in your
weight estimates. If, like me, you have *really* tiny bones, then more of
your weight will be fat. There's also different weights given for men (who
tend to have more muscle mass which weighs more than fat).

As Fil noted, some people at 5'5" look anorexic when they get below 140,
some, like me, still look pudgy around the waist and upper arms at 125.
--

Hugs,

CatNipped

See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/



--
Britta
"There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast." -- Unknown
Check out pictures of Vino at:
http://photos.yahoo.com/badwilson click on the Vino album

Workout wear and t-shirts, the difference being that a "Juicies"
brand tracksuit is $300, whereas I got a nice velour set at Stitches
for $20. ***

Regarding designer clothes:

If you've got $300 in spending money left over to spend as you please,
I really don't care what a person chooses to spend it on as long as the
purchase isn't harming anyone.

There's little difference in buying $300 worth of DVDs, $300 worth of
gold jewelry, $300 of theatre tickets, $300 of hardcover books, $300 on
dinners out or $300 of designer clothes. None of those things are
necessary, but that's the point of spending money.

I don't think a track suit is worth $300. Then again, I've got a big
toy collection and probably a lot of people would've chosen to spend
the money I spent on my toy collection last year on something else.

My complaint is not with people who like to buy designer clothes and
can afford to do so; my complaint is with people who buy designer
clothes while their kids go without lunch, and with people who spend
the money on designer clothes instead of their rent, then complain
about not having enough money.

--Fil

On 2006-01-28, jmcquown penned:
Victor Martinez wrote:

Wow... my employer is very, very relaxed regarding dress code. Many
folks wear shorts, t-shirts and sandals to work. I'm talking
engineers here, so it's not a pretty sight... ;-) Most people wear
jeans/slacks and button-down shirts though. I'd never wear a
t-shirt or shorts to work.

People were allowed to wear T-shirts (tucked in) if they didn't
sport a logo advertising some product or with anything that might be
construed as "offensive" on it. This basically meant, plain
T-shirts (and not the underwear ones). No sandals were allowed; no
shorts. We didn't meet & greet the public in I.T. but they still
expected people to not dress as if they were about to run to the
convenience store for a 6-pack of Budweiser I can completely
understand that.


Geez. I'm glad I've never worked at a place with much in the way of
clothing rules. I wear sandals, or shorts, or I dress up, or I don't,
or I wear t-shirts with logos, untucked ...



--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2006-01-28, jmcquown penned:
Victor Martinez wrote:

Wow... my employer is very, very relaxed regarding dress code. Many
folks wear shorts, t-shirts and sandals to work. I'm talking
engineers here, so it's not a pretty sight... ;-) Most people wear
jeans/slacks and button-down shirts though. I'd never wear a
t-shirt or shorts to work.

People were allowed to wear T-shirts (tucked in) if they didn't
sport a logo advertising some product or with anything that might be
construed as "offensive" on it. This basically meant, plain
T-shirts (and not the underwear ones). No sandals were allowed; no
shorts. We didn't meet & greet the public in I.T. but they still
expected people to not dress as if they were about to run to the
convenience store for a 6-pack of Budweiser I can completely
understand that.


Geez. I'm glad I've never worked at a place with much in the way of
clothing rules. I wear sandals, or shorts, or I dress up, or I don't,
or I wear t-shirts with logos, untucked ...

You're lucky. Beware if you change jobs; you might be in for dress-code
shock. I've *never* worked anywhere I could wear shorts.

Jill

On 2006-01-31, jmcquown penned:
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

Geez. I'm glad I've never worked at a place with much in the way
of clothing rules. I wear sandals, or shorts, or I dress up, or I
don't, or I wear t-shirts with logos, untucked ...

You're lucky. Beware if you change jobs; you might be in for
dress-code shock. I've *never* worked anywhere I could wear shorts.


Er, I've had three different full-time jobs since graduating from
college, with three different companies and three different
industries. The only commonality is that I was a software engineer in
all three of them.

I'll happily dress nicely for a customer meeting, but I don't see the
point in a dress code for people who never interact with customers.
As a software professional, I am expected to get the job done, even if
that means working nights and weekends. The good companies aren't
going to fret over how I dress. Oh, and my current company's clients
are all financial industry companies. Before that, I worked in the
aerospace industry, and before that, for a defense contractor. The
aerospace company was the only one with an actual dress code, but the
technical managers actively ignored us. Someone did post a "friendly
reminder" in the coffee area that we were not supposed to wear shorts
.... this at a time when many of us were doing shift work
(2pm-midnight, etc) and working weekends to get the job done. A
co-worker tore down the reminder, and the managers told us to ignore
it.

I do dress more nicely than I did at my first job, but that has to do
with how I wish to be seen, not with company policy. In fact, I
bought a bunch of nice clothes for my latest job, intending to turn
over a new leaf. But everyone here wears jeans, trail shoes, and tee
shirts (the front range uniform), so I felt conspicuous, especially
when a guy asked me if I had an interview that day!

I absolutely agree that a lot of companies have dress codes. I think
it's appropriate to dress well in certain environments, but I think
it's silly to insist that people who have no customer interaction
dress up to please the management.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

CatNipped wrote:
"badwilson" wrote in message
...
CatNipped wrote:
"Enfilade" wrote in message
ps.com...

I'm watching "The View" and one of their "hot topics" was whether
women should stop wearing certain types of clothing as they get
older (the example used was women who were over 40 shouldn't wear
"Juicies" work-out
clothes.

You'll have to clue me in on this. I don't know what "Juicies"
are.

Workout wear and t-shirts, the difference being that a "Juicies"
brand tracksuit is $300, whereas I got a nice velour set at
Stitches for $20. ***

I was ill a few years ago and lost a lot of weight. I was being
sized for some kind of bracelet or watch and had to get a "large"
size, much to the surprise of the sizer. I told her I had big
bones. She said, "I used to think "big boned" was just how some
people said "Fat" but you don't have any fat on you and yet the
diameter of your wrist is really big..."

You simply cannot start with the bodyframe of a Mack truck and
expect to build a sportscar on it

(At 130 pounds, friends and family thought I looked "Frighteningly
anorexic." People always presume I'm 30 lbs lighter than I really
am.) --Fil

I certainly couldn't have used that as an excuse - every inch on me
was something I shoved down my throat! I have what Ben calls "itty
bitty birdie bones". My wrist is 5 3/4" around (I have to take out
*ALL* the extra links in watch bands and they *STILL* don't fit
tight enough). I wear a size 4 ring.

I'm down to 125lb at 5'5" and I still look a bit chubby around the
middle and upper arms - the ideal weight for my height and my frame
starts at 110lb which, given my teeny tiny bones, I should be at. My
"range" is 110lb to 125lb, so I'm *just* within my correct weight
range.

I don't know what charts you're looking at, but that's really,
really low. The general guide is 100 lbs for 5 foot and 5 lbs for
every inch over 5 foot, so you are just right. Under 125 for 5'5"
is underweight, IMO and allows for absolutely NO muscle tone
whatsoever.

It's usually given as a range to accomodate bone structure. Since
bones weigh quite a lot, if you have large bones you have to count
that in your weight estimates. If, like me, you have *really* tiny
bones, then more of your weight will be fat. There's also different
weights given for men (who tend to have more muscle mass which weighs
more than fat).
As Fil noted, some people at 5'5" look anorexic when they get below
140, some, like me, still look pudgy around the waist and upper arms
at 125.

Well, some of your pudgyness on waist and upper arms may be because of
extra skin from when you were bigger. If it's been 2 years since you
lost the weight, the skin won't retract any further and you'd need a
tummy tuck or whatever. Losing any more weight probably won't make much
of a difference. You're best non-surgical bet would be to lift weights
and build up some muscle under the skin, this will make you more
"solid".
I have a small bone structure too, my wrist is also 5 3/4 inches and I
wear a size 5 ring. I'm 5'6" and right now I weigh 133. I have a
little roll below my belly button that I find grotesque but other people
claim is in my imagination. I'm not too worried about it. I was down
to 125 a couple of times but could only maintain that for a few days. I
can maintain 130 quite well.
I've been bad lately because my motivation to work out has left me. I
plan to get back at it once we're in Australia. For now, all I can do
is focus on getting everything done to get us out of here!
--
Britta
"There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast." -- Unknown
Check out pictures of Vino at:
http://photos.yahoo.com/badwilson click on the Vino album