h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It's sound off time again, this time about flaws women's clothing. Among my complaints:

1. Why the almost total lack of pockets? When my husband gets dressed to go to work he has at least two pockets in his trousers and five pockets in his jacket (2 hip, 1 breast and 2 inner). I'm lucky if I have two, and I only get those if I wear a jacket. More pockets in skirts, please!
2. Lack of choice of leg length in trousers. There seems to be an assumption that all women have 29 inch inside leg measurements. Mine are at least 31 inches, and with this measurement I have to wear really flat shoes. Consequently I have to buy mens trousers.
3. Lack of choice of blouse fabric. The blouses available from most department stores are made of polyester (sticky in the summer), some sort of viscose combination (creases like hell) or cotton (also creases like hell). My husband can get poly-cotton shirts, so why can't I?
4. The price of things. The last time my husband bought shirts they were about £10 from Debenhams. The last time I bought blouses they were about £20. OK, so they had some embroidery on, but you can't tell me that that costs £10 to do!
5. The lack of reasonably priced glamourous lingerie for women with large breasts. I'll admit that some manufacturers are starting to get the message here, but very few.

Please will somebody read this and take note. I'm not the only woman that gets annoyed by these things and you could make yourself some friends for life.

I agree with everything you said here. M&S trousers are the worst because standard is just that bit too short but long are far too long. I am sick of finding that the pockets on my jackets are false and that most women's trousers don't have pockets let alone skirts having them. Even when they do have poskets they are so shallow that anything you put in falls out again! And the last set of matching lingerie I could find in my bra size cost me £76, £45 for the bra and £31 for the knickers, and no they are not worth it. I can't wait for this wire-less bra for big women to come out that they did on that programme last year "Designs on Your Bra".

I saw that program too. I understand that it is due out in Autumn this year. I'd love to have some of those bras, but I wonder what the price will be!

I don't care! I would pay just about anything for a comfortable bra that didn't have wires that dig in or didn't try and squeeze my boobs into an unnatural shape!

You should try being a transvestite.

So I, er, hear

Transvestites don't have boobs, at least not ones with nerve endings in them!

Yes, but silicon "chest enhancers" are probably very expensive. Imagine a transvestite's chagrin if they were to be ripped apart from the underwiring of which you speak?

Anyway, can't you have custom bras made somwhere?

You obviously have no idea how much this would cost! If you've read Ginger's comment on how much a matching set cost her, well think of a large number and double it!

BTW the only way a pair of falsies could be damaged by an underwired bra is if the bra was damaged and the wire was coming out. Besides, I didn't think you needed to wear a bra with falsies. Aren't they self-supporting?

Can't they put little nobules on the end of the wiry bits?

i'm damn sure if a gentleman's pant was marketted with such a design flaw, there would be a thousand and one motions in the house of commons.

And not all with hands in pockets...

They do put small nobules on the end of the wires but sometimes they still work there way through the fabric. They also don't provide enough support, are a standard shape when most women's breasts are not and don't actually support where it is needed. BTW if the nobules were any bigger then they would be uncomfortable too!

Then there is also the fact that most (i.e. 99.99etc %) women have one breast larger than the other. The difference can be as much as 1 cup size, and often more.

Just found this. I have to tell you that it's not all roses for us blokes either. I have rather muscular thighs due to a youth spent cycle touring, and I have to try 20-30 pairs of trousers each time before I find a pair which fits. Then I go back for more pairs, and they've changed the design again.

I also find that long-fitting jeans come in a 34" inside leg and trousers in 33", which is precisely the opposite of how it should be. There are no shoes the same shape as most men's feet, they all pinch at the toes, and every shoe shop has exactly the same stock. Ties are all designed for midgets with scrawny necks. At 6'1" and 17" collar I have yet to find a tie of a sensible length. Mind you, the tie is a ridiculous garment, which was redundant immediately the shirt button was invented....

Good news for the ladies, though: I took my wife to Feathers of Marlow, where they spent at least half an hour finding the right fit of - ahem - foundation garments. The result was a comfortable product, which has also proved durable, and which I think (and let's face it it's my opinion which counts) looks rather good. She has broad shoulders, and a fairly deep ribcage, which was a challenge for them, but they managed nicely.

I'll admit that a lot of women have trouble with bras and other items of corsetry because they haven't been measured properly and don't know how to measure themselves. Some, like your good wife, are an odd (in the nicest possible sense) shape. Being fitted for under-garments can make a world of difference.

However, I'll bet your wife's final choice didn't come cheap, and this is one of the points I'm trying to make. Manufacturers think that women with a bust size over 38 and a cup size above C are a rarity or that we don't want reasonably priced, sexy underwear. Consequently they either don't produce it or it's horrendously expensive. As a woman with a very tight budget, I cannot afford the prices a lot of them charge!

I'm terribly sorry, but a posting with words like "tight" combined with "over 38" and "above C" has a deleterious effect on the stabiltiy of my knee-joints. I am British, you know. Steady on, please.

No, it wasn't cheap. In fact it was either horrifically expensive, or excellent value, depending on which of us you ask. Felicity thinks it was horrifically expensive, for exactly the reasons you give; I think it was excellent value because I love her and that's the way it is (takes out onion).

It must be said that blokes' dangly bits are somewhat easier to, er, handle - reasonably stretchy material will fix the inevitable variations in size and still provide comfort and support. Top Tip: I recommend M&S Calvin Klein-style stretch boxers. Comfortable and flattering - who could ask for more!

All I can say is that in my view the money was well spent (on Felicity's Marlow excursion), and that the garments in question look set to give a long and comfortable service life. If it's any help, I know that M&S actually employ proper bra fitters in some shops these days, and will help you find the right item, as long as it exists within their range. Felicity was very surprised at the disparity between what she thought was the right size, and the size recommended by the fitter at Marlow.

Cheap joke: I knew a bloke once who was a traveller in ladies underwear. When asked in a pub he always described himself as a diesel fitter. When challenged he would brandish a pair of briefs, and proclaim: "Dese'll fit 'er!"

Advice for your wife (and any other woman who reads this). I was once told that the way to determine your bra size is:

1) Measure round your rib cage immediately UNDER the breasts (i.e., the roughly the widest part of the rib cage). Take the measurement in inches.
2) If the under-bust value is odd add 5, otherwise add 4.
3) Measure over the bust at the fullest point, again in inches.
4) Subtract the value obtained in (2) from the value obtained in (3).
5) If the values are the same, it's an A cup. A difference of 1 is a B cup, 2 is C, and so on.

BUT BEWARE. Different manufacturers seem to work to different tolerances (to use an engineering term), so the fit will be different. It's best to find a manufacturer who's garments fit well and stick with them.

It's fine in theory, if only M&S used the same length inches as everybody else

That's what I mean by manufacturer's 'tolerances' being different. It also shows up in the size of outer garments (i.e., non-underwear). I have one blouse bought from C&A four years ago which is a size 16 and still fits. I also have a blouse bought from C&A two years ago which is a size 18 and is snug. Explain that one if you can!

Since you're not using the $ symbol, I must assume that you live in England. It's a long way away from the U.S., but I can still give my opinion, right?
I think you're absolutely right. For the record, I am male. But still, I think women deserve as much choice in everything as men, especially clothes.
Give em hell, Dragon.

Yes, I am English. (The £ sign should give it away.) Anyone who as an opinion on one of my journal entries can feel free to voice it. It's what the entries are there for, after all.

BTW, I have a friend who's husband is rather large. Not tall, but of great circumference (to be polite). They like to go to the States every year or two to buy clothes for him. Portly (being polite again) men are not well catered for in Britain; my friends reckon the choice of clothes is much better in the States. I guess you have more rotund people of both sexes over there, although the number of clinically obese people is increasing over here.

Right, I'm off to start another diet!

I'm afraid you're right. The number of umm, portly people over here is astounding.
Not to say that there's anything wrong with that. A lot have problems with certain organs or hormones that make them grow out instead of up. We do have many Big and Tall shops in the U.S. so if you're ever looking for clothes, you'll find em here.