alexist

I discovered yesterday that I can no longer wear regular tights (I haven't worn tights at all in weeks; I've been living in sandals). I may not feel like I have a huge bump, but whatever I do have doesn't appreciate the tights pressing down.

So I just went onto Figleaves to try to find maternity tights. There aren't any in my size!! One brand is "one size" (YEAH RIGHT), one's top weight for 5'8" women is 175 lbs (ha) and Spanx only goes up to a D in their maternity range. I actually might be able to get away with that as I carry my weight in my stomach anyway, but they're £20 which is expensive for a pair of tights. I've seen them in John Lewis as well so I could give them a try, I guess; they are good quality tights and have a nice length (always a problem for me--tall, long legs, high waist).

M&S claim their XL tights fit dress sizes 18-24, but my previous experience with M&S tights is that they aren't long/tall enough so tend to roll down. No idea if there will be any improvement in maternity tights which do have to go over the bump. Plus, they only do 10, 15, and 40 denier. 40 looks terrible in nude, and anything under 20 ladders within 2 wearings.

Worst comes to worst, I can wear knee highs (all my skirts are long) but I prefer tights. Especially once it gets cold!

Our big, new bed is being delivered next Friday :-) :-) Better night's sleep for both of us!

When I went into town earlier today, I forgot my Oyster card (it was in my coat pocket, at home). Had to shell out £5.40 for a one day travelcard. Grr. (At least I use prepay anyway, so it wasn't as bad as losing a day of a season ticket; still, the Oyster cap is lower than the cash price.)

Bought a pair of Spanx, we'll see how they are. (Also, I discovered that their sizes are slightly different for the maternity tights; a D goes up higher than the regular D, though not quite as high as the regular E. Still, officially I'm at the top end for the regular E, and that fits perfectly, so I really might be all right.)

A couple of weeks ago I got a postal subscription to the Economist as it's so much cheaper. I figured that the trade off would be having to wait a day for it to be posted. (In the US, postal subscriptions really suck, because 2nd class mail takes ages--I used to subscribe to the Economist and got it Monday/Tuesday.) So imagine my surprise when I went down today and got my 1st issue. :) (AND they said it would be 2-3 weeks: I subscribed less than 2 weeks ago.) So, go them. Neil hates The Economist, BTW; when I complained about the cat shredding an issue he said the cat had good sense about "that rag". :P

Chag Sameach to everyone celebrating Succot (it is cold and intermittently raining here, not the best weather for sitting in a succah!)

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061009fa_fact

Nice change from the usual "horrors of too many Caesarean births" articles, and very informative.