On Thursday 17 August 2006 2:50 pm, Julie wrote: > But I, and others of "mature" years do not wear my jeans ridiculously baggy > or tight. Shoes seem to be the best giveaway to gender. Can you really > tell me that you haven't seen someone whose gender you couldn't tell by > their clothing? I'm not talking the folks walking in Hollywood purposely > trying to confuse things.
Absolutely. Today I saw a young person with a crewcut in an airplane terminal. The person was wearing a gray t-shirt, jeans, and (I think) what they call river sandals (a two-strap sandal, made for both men and women). I thought the person was male--till I took a second look and saw that she had discernible--and quite large!--breasts. > > So, I still think that a future reenactor, particularly male, could be > reasonably accurate from the 1950's in jeans and a t-shirt. Clear back to > the 1850s if he wore a plain shirt, not unlike a man's shirt from > Renaissance times and earlier <G>. However, since that's not "pretty" > wouldn't it be deemed beginner garb? Julie in San Diego with tongue firmly > in cheek > > > And, at least around here, the fit of the jeans. Guys wear them > > ridiculously over-sized and baggy, and gals wear them ridiculously tight! True sometimes, but by no means always. I've seen many young women -- even slender ones--who wear their jeans with plenty of ease. I haven't typically seen men wear jeans tight, but I've seen plenty of people of both sexes who wear normal, close-to-the-body but not horrendously tight, jeans. In that case, it can be harder to tell the gender by body shape and clothing alone. -- Cathy Raymond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the point of doubtful sanity." --Robert Frost _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
