12/21 Show Discussion Thread **Spoilers**

[soybean]

I really wish they would give the designers more time! I would rather see good designs then the drama of everyone trying to finish last minute.

I wasn't happy with the judging this episode.
Daniel F's collection was my favorite. The outfits were too similar but it was pretty and I didn't think it looked too old. Even if he did design for a slightly older market, is that the worst thing in the world?

Diana's I liked okay. Cara (the model) needs to go! Insulting the product is a good way to get fired.

Daniel V's collection was BORING and I did not like the fit. I couldn't believe he won.

Santino's designs were just ugly. His previous designs have been good but he seems like a horrible human being.

[Bearcata]

In regards to the model that gave Diane a hard time. Diane said it best, why be in the business. If I were a desinger and had a show to do I would just get another girl. There is always another girl and one less difficult to deal with. Also most of the models look as if they strip down in the workroom so whats the diff being bareass of in this case show a little breast on the runway.

[JAFO'S PRINCESS]

I don't think (trying to remember) that any of the designs were the type to be worn under clothing. I am not saying daniel V. was awesome (they all sucked) he just created something that with some more work I would actually consider wearing. I thought the concept was cute.


And that model was TOTALLY out of line. What would she do if VS asked her to wear a thong??? NOT a good move.

[rupertshoney]

Santino's designs were awful - no one can deny that - but to call him cowardly because he said Emmett should be the one of his group to go is unfair - didn't everyone notice that Nick also said Emmett when he was asked who should be eliminated -

If Nick thought Santino failed as a leader don't you think he would have said so - Santino was thought to be his competition prior to this episode and to eliminate him would have theoretically helped Nick - so Emmett must have really been a drag on their team for Nick to also think Emmett should be the one to go --

-

IMO the call was made because the design was Santino's. It was *his* vision. The reason Santino choose Emmett to go is because Emmett was the only one to voice the opinion that Santino was going overboard on the embellishments and because Emmett style of design is very different from his. It appears from the start the Nick and Santino are friends and I'm sure that is why they both choose Emmett. Just to NOT choose one another.
Also bottom line is that Santino was the project leader. It was his job to delegate tasks and to follow up and be sure these things were done. Which they were, according to Santino's design. It was his design, his chosen team, and in the end his responsibility. And he didn't accept it.

[Chorita KaBoom]

Santino deserved to be the one on the chopping block because he was supposed to lead the team, and didn't. Everytime Emmett would ask "What do you want?" Santino would just say "I don't want that". He wouldn't give any guidance in creating his vision. Yes, Nick was able to get Santinos goal without any guidance, and that's a credit to Nick, not Santino's leadership. Nick probably went along with Santino on giving up Emmett because he had constantly berated Emmett to him all through the challenge. Yes, Emmett's a menswear designer, and he's at a level where he hasn't done a lot of construction in a while. He may be a little rusty, but he does know how to do it. His garment doesn't look like it has poorer construction than Santino's or Nick's. It looks like a collection, they all relate to one another. Santino just couldn't understand that Emmett might not get his design (What? You don't SEE My GENIUS?), and wouldn't bother to explain what it was that he wanted. Instead of fortifying the weakest link in his team, he undermined it at every opportunity. Then he has the gall to blame everyone else (including Heidi, this wasn't shown on TV, but Tim Gunn talks about it in his podcast) for his collections failure.

[Maveno]

TMI... TMI... TMI...

What is exactly TMI with anything in my post? I mean, for heaven sake.. we're watching half naked women every week on this show and you're finding "crotchless" and "foreplay" TMI? Hmm.. ok. It is lingerie that is being talked about here, I don't think it's a far stretch of the imagination to at least discuss the probability of sexual contact, or lackthereof, in regards to lingerie.

And FYI, not all women wear lingerie solely for this purpose... or with this thought in mind at all. Why not defer here to those who wear it, at least a little bit - as opposed to "how you like your women"?

"How you like your women"?? Uhh, I think you're assuming here what the purpose of my post was & what I think. I don't have a preference for "how I like my women"...so your comment is confusing to me. You're defending the "right to wear it without sexual intent" when you don't have to. That wasn't what was being discussed. Nor was I saying that women can't wear lingerie without thinking of their S.O.

I don't think the person meant anything by the granny panty reply - they were just thinking that's what (the earlier poster) meant. (Also it was said a lot of people don't care about lingerie, aga simply said a lot of people do; no need to then get into graphic sexual details on a PG message board?).

Yes, aga clearly posted prior to you, in which I read. There was no frothing anger. Nor do I see what the reason is for you to get all "defensive" about what I said in my post. Graphic sexual detail?

Anyway it may shock some men, but women wear things to feel pretty (for themselves), or just because they think the garment is pretty. Just for everyday wear. Lingerie needn't be all about what you're talking about here. Sorry but it bugs when anyone assumes someone is choosing clothes just for other people. Sometimes people just enjoy a nice garment for its own sake. Nothing wrong with that, either.

No lesson needs to be shocking to me.. who's "assuming" now?
My girlfriend is a BIG shopper of lingerie, for BOTH express purposes of wearing under clothes and for sexual purposes. What's the shocker in what you're stating? Who doesn't realize this? Just because you don't like to hear the discussion, doesn't mean it's wrong or "demoralizing women" because lingerie is being discussed in a sexual way.

I say this because I don't think any of the collections we saw were about "crotchless panties" anyway. It's not that kind of show
Anyway, it doesn't signify to discussion of these collections - none of which were raunchy - as to how you like things in the boudoir.

Some people would consider crotchless panties sexy, not raunchy.

No need to bite the other person's head off either IMO.

You actually think I BIT aga's head off? Well, I didn't. The only thing that might REMOTELY be "biting his head off" is the "I think that's unfair to say". In which, was addressed by me, for whatever reason I felt it was unfair. In which aga responded to me with what he meant. I understood his post. I don't see why you feel you need to defend him when he clearly wasn't as bothered as you are over what I said.

IMO aga what isn't being understood here is that it isn't solely about bedtime or sleeptime or whatever time in the bedroom, but I mean, people wear "underwear" under their clothes as well. Unless they mean that women should not wear undies at all outside the house; but that's an odd statement to me, and bottom line (no pun) lingerie is a huge industry. The image I got from some of those posts is that women should just go around naked and ready. Huh-uh. We get to wear frillies under our work suit if we want to A couple of the men are saying "she doesn't have to wear that stuff for me" and I'm just saying, uh, we don't. It's underwear! And women will even wear a nice nightie when alone, just because!

*see above response*

DISCLAIMER
This is not intended to argue with you, this is to respond to your pointed opinion of what you think I meant and/or the "way I think". Hope this clears up any misunderstandings.

[Brandy]

Well part of it was because I apparently had your post confused, since it responded to aga's post TO someone else. Sounded like you were explaining/justifying what aga was disagreeing against. It was the first person who said he didn't "like his women in lingerie" and I didn't reply to that at the time, til I thought he was defending it with - yes I felt it was too graphic a depiction of your sex life, sorry. It didn't need to be quite that descriptive in my opinion.

Seeing someone model lingerie isn't the same thing - we can see as much in a catalog, kids see those all the time I'm sure. Whatever. Just clarifying what *I* mean. Anyway, your post did also say that lingerie is not necessary, or did I imagine it. That, plus the reply aimed at aga was the reason I felt it was the same person, for that mistake I apologise. I still think it was needlessly descriptive. I don't need to hear about someone's sex life on a tv message board but maybe that's just me. "bare ass during foreplay" is a bit over the top, if you wanna know which of it I meant. (Well, "panties with a hole in the crotch" following that up also was quite suggestive; even "crotchless panties" is less so. If you don't understand why, I likely can't explain it. I just felt it didn't need to 'go there'. It's about fashion, not whether men feel "all that stuff just gets in the way". I guess I also didn't see why comment if you feel the clothes themselves are useless to begin with. But then the reasoning itself was just that you like her naked instead - we don't need to know. That's why "TMI".)

But now we both have explained ourselves and I offered my apology for some of it, I vote we move on.

[Maveno]

Yeah, we can move on..but only after I say that NOTHING in my post describes my sex life. Trust me.

"bare ass" and "foreplay".. it's not my fault that upon reading those two words put together and there is a full blown porno going on in your head.

/end discussion

[Brandy]

Yes, I read that every week in Reader's Digest.

Ok, end.

(I do have to chuckle at the irony of 2 people in their skivvies in your av. ) Peace?

[Maveno]

(I do have to chuckle at the irony of 2 people in their skivvies in your av. )

I know, me too.

Peace?

But of course.. {{passing the peace pipe}}