Friday, January 14, 2011

Brief Thoughts on Briefs

What year was it that the transition from hi-cut panty to low-rise was really solidified? 1995 maybe? At some point in the 80s, the babe in the Van Halen "Hot for Teacher" video with her bikini bottom up to her navel is the hottest shit in the world, and then a few years later all underwear rides so low it's hard to get full buttcrack coverage.
Same goes for bathing suits. It's weird, it makes it seem like women had actually different body shapes in the 80s than today, it's remarkable how the difference in cut and style really makes the body look. I can't figure out which is more flattering - if you try to forget that the hi-cut look isn't in vogue, is it more slimming and forgiving of flaws (concealing the pocket of flab below the belly button), or does it exaggerate them (cutting in with elastic right at love handles)?

Sorry for the boring post about women's clothes. Here's some t&a:


Megiweg said...

I think depends on your body type.

Anonymous said...

Hmm this explains why I think 80's chicks have such hot legs. High cut panties combined with non-80's hair would look great.

Anonymous said...

It totally would cover the post belly button dent but it wouldn't attack love handles at all, it completely skips that part as if the bad stuff never exists. Plus they make your legs look great but without mom jeans they are completely impractical.

James Foreman said...

sorry to distract from the conversation about foundation garments, but I'm not entirely sure that stripper is a lady - and I don't think those guys are, either.

josh said...

I only see A. No T.