Comments on: Could a fatty spend $150K on clothes if she wanted to?

By: geekgrrrl

geekgrrrl — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 21:22:34 +0000

I saw a video at abcnews where Palin said it was for her entire family, as slythwolf said, and she also said they were just “borrowing” the clothing. She didn’t outright say they would be giving it back, but she implied it. I wonder if that is true? I am just wondering what the republican party would do with all of those clothes if they did give them back? you can’t return them if you’ve worn them, and I can’t imagine that they would keep them.. anyone know if that is the case?

By: slythwolf

slythwolf — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:39:36 +0000

Pretty sure the $150,000 was for Gov. Palin’s entire immediate family, not just her.

By: Nahrain

Nahrain — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:44:56 +0000

Although I don’t have 150k to spend on clothes, I do have enough to shop at stores like saks and neimans. And maybe you can find some things online, but there is -no- selection whatsoever in stores- and equally, I’ve never encountered a worker willing to entertain ordering anything larger than a size 10. It is disappointing, because it falls right back into that cycle of you can’t be ‘attractive’ unless you’re ‘thin’- I HAVE the non-imaginary money to spend on these things, I want to buy them, and you wont sell it to me in my size?

By: Ajay

Ajay — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:13:53 +0000

Okay. I understand fantasy shopping, truly I do. BUT. Imagine this: If I live to be one hundred years old, and if my spending on all wearables continues to be $500-$750 per year , I will “only” be spending $50,000 to $75,000 IN MY ENTIRE LIFE.

Just sayin’.

On the other hand, a web photo of Obama with his feet up on a desk, showing the holes in the bottom of his shoes “before they were resoled for the third time”
MADE.ME.SWOON.

By: cynth

cynth — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:08:44 +0000

Oh and the Humble The Penguin Minaudier is extremely cute. However for that price I can possibly purchase a live penguin and its habitat. :)

By: cynth

cynth — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 18:58:53 +0000

I just can’t even imagine that individual clothing items are worth more than $200 tops. I mean sure I can allow for some nice materials, fabric and design .. but FFS why would anyone pay more for most of those items in your list?

*User note I may possibly be missing the “fashion gene”.

By: Wench

Wench — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 01:28:35 +0000

You can get super-fabulous shoes in larger sizes (okay, so I haven’t managed a pair of Louboutins yet, but…). You do have to go online for them. I’ve had good luck with Shoemall.com and Amazon.com.

I wear a 12, so I feel your pain, whoever posted about the 11.5. I haven’t bought a pair of shoes in a b&m in YEARS.

By: geekgrrrl

geekgrrrl — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 00:47:09 +0000

I have the same problem with clothing, but I have found a few places online that carry *some* pieces in my style AND size.

Here’s a partial list:

bbwboutique.com
zaftique.com
roamans.com
onestopplus.com

I’ll have to dig through my bookmarks to find more but I know there are a few more.

Now granted, many of the items I find either look strange on my body type, or the arms are too big, etc. but I do usually have good luck with finding at least one piece from each site, or more if I am willing to look at EVERY item they carry to find something truly exceptional.

By: Lisa in NY

Lisa in NY — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:51:48 +0000

To be fair, Salon Z and the 12-16 misses sizes are available in a much bigger variety at the brick-and-mortar Saks than they are online.

(That said I don’t have a ton of luck shopping in person and I’m a size freaking 14, but part of it is that whole in-between issue and it still beats the hell out of >24.)

Apropos of pretty much nothing, hippy butty curvy inbetweenies should check out Jag “Lucy” jeans at $79 rack rate. At Bloomingdales b&m, and at Nordstrom online where I ordered three more pairs this morning, because I’m terrified lest they go away. I’ve never been happier with a new pair of jeans; they look as good as that rare pair of jeans that fit well but constrict a little bit for your own good, but they don’t even do that — they’re like butta.

By: holls

holls — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:46:32 +0000

Marjorie Gubelmann is the ONLY visible social type that I can think of in a ‘larger’ size (I don’t want to get a link caught in the Spam filter, but she is VERY easy to google).
Vogue, et al, even trot her out on occasion for a nonsense dressing at every size story.
And what is she, 16? 18?