Poll
Question:
Ever owned any?
Option 1: Yes
votes: 7
Option 2: No
votes: 10
For the uninformed highwaters are pants that fit at one point but the wearer grew out of but continues to wear.
I'm a missionary kid and I went to school with a lot of missionary kids. Virtually everyone wore highwaters. The poor kids whose fathers worked for really cheap-ass churches wore highwaters that went halfway up the shin.
It struck me that I haven't seen a kid wearing highwaters in...forever. Was it only a missionary thing? Have times changed in the US too, do poor families now buy new pants regardless? What's the Yuro take on the highwater issue?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2009, 04:58:29 AM
For the uninformed highwaters are pants that fit at one point but the wearer grew out of but continues to wear.
I'm a missionary kid and I went to school with a lot of missionary kids. Virtually everyone wore highwaters. The poor kids whose fathers worked for really cheap-ass churches wore highwaters that went halfway up the shin.
It struck me that I haven't seen a kid wearing highwaters in...forever. Was it only a missionary thing? Have times changed in the US too, do poor families now buy new pants regardless? What's the Yuro take on the highwater issue?
I thought poor people wore baggy pants nowadays.
Trousers are still too short, but you can't tell as young folk wear them hanging halfway off their arses.
Most of the pants I've ever owned haven't really fit correctly, because no one makes 32 X 31s.
I've never heard this term. We'd say has your budgie died.
And no, as a kid you cannot wear such trousers, its a sure fire way to get picked on.
I haven't seen them for a long time either (except as play clothes round the garden and school uniform, because the shops don't seem to stock them sometimes), we have got a pretty good benefits system going here and there's always been a lot of pass me down, hand me round. Neither have I seen peep toes - cut the end off shoes with a bread knife to keep them fitting.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2009, 05:25:30 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 11, 2009, 05:20:41 AM
We'd say has your budgie died.
:huh:
Budgies look like they're wearing short trousers.
I've no clue how that makes it your budgies have died though. Kids aren't known for logic.
Highwaters? I wore a potato sack growing up - and there were still potatoes in it.
we called them floodpants.
Quote from: Tyr on August 11, 2009, 05:52:06 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2009, 05:25:30 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 11, 2009, 05:20:41 AM
We'd say has your budgie died.
:huh:
Budgies look like they're wearing short trousers.
I've no clue how that makes it your budgies have died though. Kids aren't known for logic.
The confusion is over what the fuck a budgie is...
"Eau dans la cave"
I have 3 older brothers. I could always get one of their trousers.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 11, 2009, 06:39:55 AM
"Eau dans la cave"
This, but then in Dutch
Nowadays you can buy very cheap pants, made in South-East Asian sweat shops. So 'poor' people buy new, fitting pants. However these pants mostly look horrible and cheap...
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on August 11, 2009, 06:39:27 AM
The confusion is over what the fuck a budgie is...
:BLINK:
You don't have them in the US?
I thought they were one of the world's most common pets...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vet.ohio-state.edu%2Fassets%2Fcourses%2Fvcs727%2Favianident%2Fimg026.jpg&hash=0ab9b1488fb066973e82479889bbe05047f6bb3c)
Looks like a parakeet. I've never heard the word budgie in my life.
It is a kind of parakeet I think.
Its properly called a budgerigar. I guess budgie is the kind of shortening more typical with British-Australian than American.
I had never heard Budgie before either.
I've heard of them but always in a British context, don't think many people keep that breed here.
I'm 5'2". To me, highwaters were crop pants that were too long. :blush:
That being said, a number of the kids at my daughter's school wear them as they wear uniforms, and parents will keep a kid in the uniform pants well beyond when the kid should have passed them on to another.
Growing up, we had enough kids in the neighborhood that no one had to wear highwaters. The parents all just passed clothes around as needed to make sure everyone had something that fit. The sole exception was Phil Ramos, who was 6' in 6th grade. As the tallest in the neighborhood, he always wore them. :D
We called them "floods". And you are right, I don't really see them these days.
Floods aren't possible for me; the reason I'm so short is because my legs are- when you wear a 33x29, pants are always too long, if anything.
I never heard the term high waters. I don't remember if I wore them as a kid; my parents certainly had to work hard to make ends meet, so I'm sure I had to make do and maybe just didn't usually realize it. I did wear some of my older brother's stuff, and my parents swapped clothes with my cousins.
I have no real idea, but I get the impression the average family with kids simply was poorer 30 odd years ago. Maybe this is a function of people having kids when younger - it was much more common then for people to have kids while starting their careers, rather than the other way about (and to have more kids). My dad for example had the first of the three of us when he was a graduate student ... having to wear secondhand clothes wasn't that unusual.
What with 5 dollar pants from china it is has been cheaper to get new pants than to fix pants.
Yeah I think the cheaper clothes angle is most likely it.
These days I've known for people to go on holiday to Turkey and the like with cheap £3 t-shirts and that sort of thing for the kids and just leave them there for the cleaner to give to her kids when they come home.
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2009, 08:35:56 AM
I have no real idea, but I get the impression the average family with kids simply was poorer 30 odd years ago. Maybe this is a function of people having kids when younger - it was much more common then for people to have kids while starting their careers, rather than the other way about (and to have more kids). My dad for example had the first of the three of us when he was a graduate student ... having to wear secondhand clothes wasn't that unusual.
They're also having fewer kids.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on August 11, 2009, 08:51:49 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2009, 08:35:56 AM
I have no real idea, but I get the impression the average family with kids simply was poorer 30 odd years ago. Maybe this is a function of people having kids when younger - it was much more common then for people to have kids while starting their careers, rather than the other way about (and to have more kids). My dad for example had the first of the three of us when he was a graduate student ... having to wear secondhand clothes wasn't that unusual.
They're also having fewer kids.
Yup. :D
Isn't clothing much cheaper these days?
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2009, 10:01:06 AM
Isn't clothing much cheaper these days?
I dunno. Has the average cost of basic blue jeans or the like fallen in relative terms against other commodities?
I'm sure I wore them but I haven't seen them in about 10 years until I saw this one kid with really old, faded, tight, short pants. I felt bad for him. I really wanted to buy a pair of pants for him. :(
I try to get rid of pants I've grown out of.
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2009, 10:07:59 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2009, 10:01:06 AM
Isn't clothing much cheaper these days?
I dunno. Has the average cost of basic blue jeans or the like fallen in relative terms against other commodities?
With the growth of WalMart-type stores, I think it may have. I bought a pair of men's "Rustler" (presumably the knock-off of Wrangler) blue jeans at WalMart for about $7.99. I don't know if any place could have afforded to price jeans that low 30 years ago.
Yes, I did when I was little. My father used to make fun of me.
At least I don't have to worry about going into a nursing home. Surely ONE of the kids will take me in... right?
Oh, and none of my kids wear highwaters. They're almost all the exact same height, and they tend to wear their jeans low on the hips, anyway. Not low on their bums, but definitely low on their hips.
Quote from: merithyn on August 11, 2009, 05:53:01 PM
At least I don't have to worry about going into a nursing home. Surely ONE of the kids will take me in... right?
Oh, and none of my kids wear highwaters. They're almost all the exact same height, and they tend to wear their jeans low on the hips, anyway. Not low on their bums, but definitely low on their hips.
If they're all the same size you can't do hand me downs. :huh:
Quote from: Ideologue on August 11, 2009, 05:17:04 AM
Most of the pants I've ever owned haven't really fit correctly, because no one makes 32 X 31s.
???
I've purchased plenty such trousers, I'm pretty sure.
Of course, there's also the tactic of getting 32 x 32s or 32 x 34s and spending $5 to have them hemmed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2009, 06:04:46 PM
If they're all the same size you can't do hand me downs. :huh:
My bank account knows this. Well. <_<
The good news is that they've mostly stopped growing now. Or at least, the elder two have. The youngest.. oy. The elder two would be wearing his hand-me-downs pretty soon, if he weren't so damn skinny. He wears a 28x30 right now... which is impossible to find, and are almost to short for him and too big in the waist. So, instead, he wears the same jeans as the other boys, but with a belt and lots of pleats.
Barristerboy in the making? :unsure:
Quote from: Jacob on August 11, 2009, 07:35:16 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 11, 2009, 05:17:04 AM
Most of the pants I've ever owned haven't really fit correctly, because no one makes 32 X 31s.
???
I've purchased plenty such trousers, I'm pretty sure.
Of course, there's also the tactic of getting 32 x 32s or 32 x 34s and spending $5 to have them hemmed.
Can you get 28 x 32s? :unsure:
Quote from: merithyn on August 11, 2009, 09:19:18 PM
He wears a 28x30 right now... which is impossible to find
That's all I used to wear for the longest and yeah it was hard to find pants that fit. Not a boy, not yet a man. -_-
That's weird I used to wear 28x30 also.
Quote from: merithyn on August 11, 2009, 09:19:18 PM
Barristerboy in the making? :unsure:
Sadly aging has put me more into the 32" waist category... :(
Quote from: Jacob on August 11, 2009, 07:35:16 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 11, 2009, 05:17:04 AM
Most of the pants I've ever owned haven't really fit correctly, because no one makes 32 X 31s.
???
I've purchased plenty such trousers, I'm pretty sure.
Of course, there's also the tactic of getting 32 x 32s or 32 x 34s and spending $5 to have them hemmed.
Canada probably requires vendors to sell them by law, in imperial as well as metric sizes and with bilingual documentation about their recommended use.
They're not impossible to find, but in my experience rare, is all. I don't even know where I would go to get something hemmed, either. :blush: