Functional Vs. Nonfunctional

[sakon76]

In my last few trips to England, I've finally walked through the doors of the Bravissimo in Cambridge and gotten fit for bras that actually fit me. Thing is, though, not all cups are shaped equally and even knowing my actual size for the first time in my life, I still have to try things on before buying. But once I know something fits, I can buy that style with confidence.

So I just ordered two more of my sports bra, for my inlaws to ferry over in a couple weeks, for something like $48 each. My favorite daywear bra, alas, seems to've been discontinued. I googled the maker and number and found a few online stores that still have it for $82 each.

Meanwhile, I can go down to Target and get a packet of panties my size for about a dollar each. And as far as I can tell, panties serve no purpose other than (1) keeping the short hairs from getting caught in a zipper, and (2) for a few days a month, being an anchoring platform for those of us who use pads rather than tampons.

The lesson I'm taking away here is that the more useful something is, the more it costs. Anyone else got any other theories?

Comments

[mmouse15.livejournal.com]

Men don't wear over-the-shoulder-boulder-holders, so they're more expensive.

I think that anything men wear is better made and less expensive than something comparable from the same manufacturer made for women. It drives me nuts.

/random weird theories on clothing manufacture.

tl;dr I agree with you.

[femme4jack.livejournal.com]

well... having given birth twice with the subsequent issues regarding muscle strength, I have to wear panty liners month round. But, other than that, the only purpose panties seem to serve is crawling up my aft.

[ghilledhu.livejournal.com]

Well, panties do also serve as a barrier between skin and sweat and your good clothes - pants especially would get a lot dirtier a lot faster without panties. That said, I think that bras are so much more expensive simply because they're a lot harder and more complex to make.

Panties have a relatively simple "job", so they can be made quickly and easily and with relatively cheap materials. Bras have to fight a daily battle against gravity. Panties don't need underwires, adjustable straps and/or clasps, or any real shaping, unlike bras (I suppose the exception would be panties with built-in tummy control or butt-support, which are more expensive).

...and all this talk about underwear is making me think of that episode of Chobits - I think you know the one I'm talking about! ^_^

[dragondancer515.livejournal.com]

The lesson I'm taking away here is that the more useful something is, the more it costs.

THIS. >,>

Though ghilledhu has a point about simpler = cheaper, etc. But still, bras are mass-produced and shouldn't be 2-4x the expense of, say, good slacks or something.

[haamel.livejournal.com]

Well, the khakis I favor are basically the same price bracket apiece as the $48 per bra quoted above. One the one hand, they require more surface area of cloth than one would expect a bra to. On the other hand, the fabric is not in general under constant shifting tension, and need not be both lightweight and resilient the way a bra must. The closures on the khakis are also blessedly simple compared to the adjustable straps and/or multiple hook'n'eyes business.

All things being equal, I'd say that bras are exensive both because there are many more shapes to contend with guys' pants (where waist, inseam and occasionally crotch give really do suffice for purchasing), and because they demand more from less-obtrusive materials. Panties by contrast can be of simple cut and fabric selection (or not, in which case "functionality" might be better related to the boudoir)...