|
-
26th October 11, 05:57 PM
#1
Re: Skirting Obscenity
 Originally Posted by Tartan Tess
Gads!High school gym shorts back in the 70's.........couldn't be 3" or 4" above your knee.
Womens thigh bones are longer than mens if I rememeber correctly.
Think Billie kilt here. lucky you Xman (measuring her) ha ha
In all seriousness, I am interested to know the final measurements, and how to make the damn thing. I have a goal of making all sorts of types of kilts....tradational, dance, military, box etc.for a Saint Andrews Society exhibition and a billie kilt would be the icing on the cake.
I think it is the men's thigh bones that are often proportionally longer than women's in relation to the calf bones, but maybe I have it backwards. Don't know much about tailoring, but have a little bit of experience making ceramic sculptures of human figures.
I'm not an expert though!
I tried to ask my inner curmudgeon before posting, but he sprayed me with the garden hose…
Yes, I have squirrels in my brain…
-
-
26th October 11, 06:26 PM
#2
Re: Skirting Obscenity
I was amazed when the OP was worried that 6" above the knee might be obscene, so I tried to Google it, but everything that came back was about school dress codes!
FWIW, those varied between 1" and 6" above the knee as a minimum length, and those few that specified a range including a maximum length ALL said the same range, which was 4-6" above the knee (that is, except for one that said the hem musn't scrape on the floor!). From my own schooldays, I think hems had to be in the range of between 3" and 5" above the knee (I was crestfallen when they allowed the girls to wear trousers!), although not being a girl I cannot be sure if those are the right numbers, and I know that many of the girls wore skirts that were both shorter and longer than they were supposed to be.
Anyway, that's all rather OT except that I'm pretty sure that 6" above the knee isn't considered obscene when there are apparently plenty of schools that have put in writing that schoolgirls can wear that length, bearing in mind that they are supposed to be in loco parentis (look it up). Maybe not in YOUR locality, but that's another story.
Of course, that length might be considered obscene for a man in a kilt, for various reasons too delicate to discuss, but that's another matter altogether!
-
-
26th October 11, 06:53 PM
#3
It might be worthwhile to have your friend mail you a skirt that she owns and likes, and do your best to copy it.
--dbh
When given a choice, most people will choose.
-
-
27th October 11, 03:11 AM
#4
Re: Skirting Obscenity
 Originally Posted by Bugbear
I think it is the men's thigh bones that are often proportionally longer than women's in relation to the calf bones, but maybe I have it backwards. Don't know much about tailoring, but have a little bit of experience making ceramic sculptures of human figures.
I'm not an expert though!
you are correct the only perportion bigger on woman is her pelvis
-
-
27th October 11, 11:05 AM
#5
Re: Skirting Obscenity
 Originally Posted by Damocles
you are correct the only perportion bigger on woman is her pelvis
Yes. When you start adding soft tissue... whole different story, though. So very thin leg muscles could make a leg look longer and so on. I have a bunch of plastic models of animels
and so on to use when sculpting, but I usually take lots of measurements of the different sections of the model and look at the ratios.
I tried to ask my inner curmudgeon before posting, but he sprayed me with the garden hose…
Yes, I have squirrels in my brain…
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks