srah blah blah

Matthew the Young - April 12, 2004 - 12:42 PM - ℓ

I agree, because thigh-high stockings suggest that an observer would be seeing more of the wearer's leg (which is almost always good), as opposed to knee-high stockings where all you see is the calf (else, why would the wearer go to the trouble?) I don't think there is much room for debate here... what kind of resolution is this?

Speaking of thigh*, what about thigh-high socks? Hmmm... ;)

* ha! :)

Erica - April 12, 2004 - 1:18 PM - ℓ

The question of stockings doesn't seem to be debatable to me. That socks thing, though....

Remember back in the day when they made those tights that were made out of sock-like material? Why did I like those?

katie - April 12, 2004 - 1:46 PM - ℓ

Thigh-high anything, whether stockings or socks, piss me off. The reason for this is that they don't stay up. They sag, or worse, the roll. Knee-highs you can keep up because they sit on top of your knees.

The Urstodian - April 12, 2004 - 2:01 PM - ℓ

Thats why you use garters and be especially sexy

Resolved that: The Srah Blah Blah readership should substancially change its understanding of the sexiness of certain types of stockings

Any former debaters out there? We could have a feild day with topicality arguments

melissa - May 18, 2004 - 6:17 PM - ℓ

I like opaque stockings that look like they are from the 1920's. I found some pretty cool ones from here:
StockinGirl

melissa - May 18, 2004 - 6:18 PM - ℓ

I like opaque stockings that look like they are from the 1920's. I found some pretty cool ones from here:
StockinGirl

melissa - May 18, 2004 - 6:18 PM - ℓ

I like opaque stockings that look like they are from the 1920's. I found some pretty cool ones from here:
StockinGirl