the female condition supposedly dictates an intrinsic working knowledge of apparel. what not to wear is usually fairly self explanatory; white shoes during "daisy duke 'n muffin top hanging out" season only; too tight bra straps showcasing compressed backfat spillage; VGL's (visible g-string line, seen above, not through) and it's antithesis PUMA (pants up my arse), second cousin to camel toe. all are aesthetic concerns when trying to navigate day to day activities, the challenge comes when engaging in activity.
i recently read an article detailing what to wear, with regard to trousers and your god-given/two-bowl-of-cinnamon-toast-crunch-after-dinner-given silhouette; back pockets commensurate to surface area of the cheeks; waist bands falling at, or below, the navel (apparently impacts volume of spillage); flared at the knee versus tapered at the ankle for those who don't want to showcase their "fat jodphurs". unfortunately running tights are exactly that, they come in: 'one size fits all sizes but really looks better on deena kastor's size'. there is no lift/separate/tuck feature included in the design for those of us who aren't appearing on the cover of runner's world.
perhaps going the lance armstrong track, and doing the reproductive removal, could add a weight advantage. it would certainly improve my time. what are other "non-essential" organs?
No comments:
Post a Comment