Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg a size 6/8 is hardly fat. You el DCUMers are always so crazy about weight.

Not really. Size 6/8 (vanity sizing) on a 5'1" frame is very different from size 6/8 on a 5'9" frame.

Yes, really, and you just proved it once again. A size 6/8 on a 5'9" frame = eating disorder.

Your idea of eating disorder is out of whack. 6/8 on a 5'9" frame is perfectly acceptable, but a size 0/2 on that frame would cause alarm.

And how tall are you, honey?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need heels! 5'1" cries out for heels.

Nope. Some looks / styles / people are anti-heel. Take that sexist crap somewhere else.

Nope, sorry, I won't. If she wasn't asking for opinions, she didn't need to post. Heels would look much better than flats for her.

Agree. Heels will elongate her legs which she desperately needs. Whether she is wearing pants, jeans, dresses, she needs heels.

Disagree. I always prefer the look of flats. Heels may make her look longer, but not everyone prefers that aesthetic.

Some people prefer the aesthetic of short stumpy legs? Huh?

Some of us don't need heels to have good looking legs. Sucks to be you, huh?

Stop foisting hell-heels on people who don't want to wear them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is not light makeup, OP.

I'm glad someone else thought this, too. I guess what I wear would be considered no makeup.

Yeah, that's definitely not light makeup. I wear what I think is light makeup: mascara, gel blush, tinted lip balm. Concealer for the random zit.

YOu could apply all those things very lightly. I do. DH didn't realize I wore makeup when we first were dating.

Hahaha, okay PP. You took your DH's word for that? Here's a newsflash, men will try to flatter you when dating. I'm sure he knew you wore makeup and even if he didn't, every woman you came across most certainly did. Get over yourself, you wear a ton of makeup if you're wearing what OP described.

Just because you do not know how to apply makeup properly does not mean the rest of us can't.

Anonymous wrote:Um, self-obsessed?

Yes, this! Wowzers!

I'm guessing that a 31 year old director level woman benefits tremendously from dressing the way she does. I know I did at her age. In my late 20's and early 30's I shopped at Talbots, didn't dye my gray hair, and wore pearls. Why? Ambition, and I was young for positions I was rapidly moving through. Looking old and boring helped. Looking young, slim, hip, mod, yada yada yada was going to do nothing for my career.

Now at 43 I wear whatever the heck I want to work, and sometimes its something bright and weird I bought in a market overseas and sometimes its out of the LLBean catalogue.

If OP feels like she wants to have a different look she should! But from a practical work stand point...she may be doing it right already.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm tall so I've never had to think about it. But I will say my short, thin CW's look great in flats with skinny pants or pencil skirts. But my short, athletic or curvy CW's look way better in heels in the same outfit. I feel like shorter women need to pay more attention to their shoes so as not to look dumpy. It's easy for pants, for example, to be too long and look even worse/sloppy when worn with flats.

CW? None of these seem to fit:

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/CW

Never mind. Urban dictionary came up with camera whore and coworker. I'm going to assume it's the latter.

Anonymous wrote:I'm tall so I've never had to think about it. But I will say my short, thin CW's look great in flats with skinny pants or pencil skirts. But my short, athletic or curvy CW's look way better in heels in the same outfit. I feel like shorter women need to pay more attention to their shoes so as not to look dumpy. It's easy for pants, for example, to be too long and look even worse/sloppy when worn with flats.

CW? None of these seem to fit:

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/CW

Ditch the MK bag.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems very tasteful and conservative.

This.

Get off the internet, Grandma.

Biologically, OP could be a grandma... so it's fitting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:too long... What is the point of this?

+1

+2, even for the first world, OP's question seems a bit silly for a 31 yo.

I'm tall so I've never had to think about it. But I will say my short, thin CW's look great in flats with skinny pants or pencil skirts. But my short, athletic or curvy CW's look way better in heels in the same outfit. I feel like shorter women need to pay more attention to their shoes so as not to look dumpy. It's easy for pants, for example, to be too long and look even worse/sloppy when worn with flats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems very tasteful and conservative.

This.

Get off the internet, Grandma.

Anonymous wrote:Seems very tasteful and conservative.

This.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need heels! 5'1" cries out for heels.

Nope. Some looks / styles / people are anti-heel. Take that sexist crap somewhere else.

Nope, sorry, I won't. If she wasn't asking for opinions, she didn't need to post. Heels would look much better than flats for her.

Agree. Heels will elongate her legs which she desperately needs. Whether she is wearing pants, jeans, dresses, she needs heels.

Disagree. I always prefer the look of flats. Heels may make her look longer, but not everyone prefers that aesthetic.

Some people prefer the aesthetic of short stumpy legs? Huh?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg a size 6/8 is hardly fat. You el DCUMers are always so crazy about weight.

Not really. Size 6/8 (vanity sizing) on a 5'1" frame is very different from size 6/8 on a 5'9" frame.

Yes, really, and you just proved it once again. A size 6/8 on a 5'9" frame = eating disorder.

Ok fattie