?

Log in

No account? Create an account
To the young woman at Ruislip Manor, yesterday noon. - Off in the distance
browse
my journal
links
May 2016
 

The Bellinghman
Date: 2010-04-07 11:37
Subject: To the young woman at Ruislip Manor, yesterday noon.
Security: Public
I know there's been a fashion for the top of your thong to be visible as you walk.

But (and correct me if I'm wrong) it's normally the case that that's above your waistband. When it's visible below your hemline, I would put it to you that your skirt is, perhaps, a little on the short side.
Post A Comment | 10 Comments | | Link






User: silly_swordsman
Date: 2010-04-07 11:12 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I take it these - as I believe such things are occasionally called - "Essex anklewarmers" weren't worn in the almost-off position?

The fashions of some segments of young female society keep amaze me - I'm still trying to decide at what denier a pair of tights or pantyhose does not demand a skirt, shorts or other garment in the hips-and-bum area. From visible evidence around town, it seems it's considered optional at any denier, whereas I would have pegged it at around 40 or 50.
Reply | Thread | Link



The Bellinghman
User: bellinghman
Date: 2010-04-07 11:21 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
The traditional setup is that the trousers are worn low enough that the thong's waistband is visible above the waistband of the trews. Those would be what you so delicately term "Essex anklewarmers".

In this case, it wasn't the waistband that had moved enough to display the thong's top. Rather, it was the other extremity of the garment - in this case a skirt - and the entire undergarment was visible from behind as she climbed the steps.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Just a random swede
User: vatine
Date: 2010-04-07 11:32 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Though with the delicate garment worn in "the anklewarmer" position, wouldn't even a mid-calf skirt allow full view of the garment? Thus it is possible to infer either an odd choice of wearing-position or an odd choice of skirt-length and both would, indeed, be remarkable.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



The Bellinghman
User: bellinghman
Date: 2010-04-07 11:37 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Hence my 'below the hemline'.

ETA: Ah, I see what you were saying. The undergarments worn low.

No, it they'd been around her ankles, she'd have had a little difficulty in walking. No, she was wearing them in the conventional position, and it was the skirt that was making a pussy pelmet look modest.

Edited at 2010-04-07 12:11 pm (UTC)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



_hypatia_
User: hypatia
Date: 2010-04-07 11:14 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Well if you will go to the cheap end of town...
Reply | Thread | Link



The Bellinghman
User: bellinghman
Date: 2010-04-07 11:23 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
As it happens, it was the Tube station most convenient for where we'd left the car. For some reason, there's no station on top of Windmill Hill.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



_hypatia_
User: hypatia
Date: 2010-04-07 11:41 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Personally I'd like that trainline to detour closer to the woods between the two ends of Ruislip :-) I had intended to drop into the Radisson over the weekend but things didn't quite work (or at least I didn't!), sounds like it was fun.
Reply | Thread | Link



User: khrister
Date: 2010-04-07 14:59 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I believe it is customary to post something like "Pics or it didn't happen", or maybe "GIF!", in a situation like this.

But I won't.
Reply | Thread | Link



Alex McLintock
User: alexmc
Date: 2010-04-07 15:20 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Oh dear, you stick in the mud!
Reply | Thread | Link



The Bellinghman
User: bellinghman
Date: 2010-04-07 15:41 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
*snicker*

Poor lass, she was absent-mindedly attempting to pull the hem down.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link