My lady companion and I are attending the theatre next week, and since it's opening night, I planned on wearing my kilt. My lady companion does not have an evening dress.
Being simple people, we went to the mall, Macy's and JC Penney, and found a very tiny selection. Most of them were not aesthetically pleasing at all, and of the ones that were, most of them could not be worn by a woman who considered modesty an important virtue.
Time and again I'd say "how about that one?" and she would reply, "that's not enough dress."
(Being inexperienced in picking out womens' clothes, it takes me quite a long time to analyze a garment. I wasn't selecting low-cut or high-slit stuff on purpose.)
Actually, none of them were what we considered modest; two straps the size of strands of vermicelli do not do a sufficient job covering the upper body. It is assumed she would wear some additional shawl or sweater-jacket or whatever you call those things women wear to cover up where the dress leaves off.
Even with that assumption though, we found a total of three dresses. One I liked and she didn't, one neither of us liked, and one we both liked but was covered in glitter destined to contaminate my vehicle for eternity (friend of mine still has glitter in his back seat from a dress of hers two years ago).
So, is there anyone more familiar in the ways of female styles than we are (she *hates* shopping, and so we have exhausted her dress finding skills already) who could help? Where does one go to find a nice evening dress?
We live near San Francisco. If anyone knows of anything nearby, or of any chain stores we can try, or has any comments on the unfindability of modest apparel, please post.
Túrin
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Do you have to go there? How about ordering online? This can be to you in 3-4 days.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I can understand the frustration (even without owning an evening dress) of trying to find modest but nice apparel. It sounds like you have the right idea with a shawl or shrug (those little jacket things). Does she (or any of her really good friends) sew? Although there isn't a lot of time, there is probably enough time to make a simple dress. It may be possible to modify a store-bought dress. Don't automatically dismiss dresses with high slits. Depending on the construction of the dress (meaning that the cut of the fabric wouldn't be restrictive), it is quite easy to sew up (well, actually down) a slit. I have done it quite a few times (since I have fairly long legs, slits can often be higher than I'd like). Or, she could try combining separates pieces - a satin skirt with a nice blouse... You may try also looking at a bridal shop (they often have attendant gowns).
Good luck....
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Look for something with a high neck and a long skirt. I tend to look better with high necklines, and I know how difficult they can be to find. Long skirts are much easier. It's starting to be fall, so hopefully the more "covered-up" fashions will be coming in soon. Good luck!
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Wow, I like that dress!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think there is a certain amount of irony in that a woman who desires modest dress is being accompanied by a man in a kilt. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I know many verses to THAT song. I wear only modest clothing, per my religious views. That translates to skirts past the knee (and no slits that go up, as my mother would say "to the pippik"); neckline above the collarbone, and sleeves past the elbow.
This tends to be challenging; some style-years more than others.
I find the majority of my clothes via catalogs (many of which are now online). It's not so much that their offerings are significantly more modest. It's that there are more options; and SOME of them meet my criteria.
But one week and catalogs are mutually incompatible, generally. Posted by Diosmel Duda (Member # 2180) on :
Here are links to a few online stores that sell modest formals:
The second link is currently working on getting their Fall line to their Web site, so there's nothing to be seen.
www.ldsbride.com also has some formalwear, but it's on this hideous page that makes me think every dress looks ugly, even though some of them are quite pretty.
Keep in mind, these dresses are very modest. They have sleeves, modest necklines, high backs, and long skirts. They can also be a little expensive, but I guess if you're buying a formal dress, what do you expect?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I like the beautifully modest dresses - and I'm not even a modest dresser! Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
I'm not sure what your budget is, but if you're looking for modest formal dresses, avoid JC Penny's and Macy's like the plague -- instead, check out more upscale chains like Nordstrom's and Lord & Taylor. You might find more of what you're looking for.
Posted by Túrin (Member # 2704) on :
Thanks for the comments and links. I have to go to the grocery store at the moment but I'll check them out in depth when I return.
quote:I think there is a certain amount of irony in that a woman who desires modest dress is being accompanied by a man in a kilt.
And what, pray tell, is ironic about that? My knees are visible, and hands, and face. That's it. I suppose I do have some pretty sexy kneecaps...
Wasn't planning on turning cartwheels or anything...
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Laura Ashley, naturally. Go to any upscale neighborhood, and there is very likely to be a store.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
This one is my favorite from the beautifully modest dresses.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
I suppose this is mostly off-topic, but I really have to go on record as saying that I do like a man in a kilt. Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Am I the only one who wants to see Turin in his kilt?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Just remember that since there's a queen you have to wear underpants Posted by Lead (Member # 918) on :
If you don't have time for ordering online, or she doesn't want to purchase without being able to try the garment on, you might look for a Robinsons May, which you should be able to find in a good mall. I don't know for sure that they have them in SF, but they do have them in San Diego (I was in one last month). (This is the same store as Foleys. Same merchandise, same ads, same sales.) I have found these two stores to be the best shopping selection of women's clothing, simply based on the size of the departments. In some locations, they actually have two stores...the women's stuff, and another for everything else. Many department stores have nearly no dress selection, but these stores have quite a large department of dresses, including a section for more formal attire. I have picked up a couple of dresses and skirts at Foleys, and they have excellent sales. Again, I can't guarantee the modesty of everything, as that wasn't something I was looking for. But I did pick up a simple "little black dress" a few months ago, very well made, short (but after losing 100 lbs, I _wanted_ short), with tank straps and a neckline well above my cleavage. It isn't "really" short, but it does come to just above the knee. The original price was about $90, and I picked it up for $30. Not a bad bargain. (I've also picked up a number of great skirts at Foleys, the kind that drop right down to the top of my feet.) The quality is good for the money.
Of course, I _still_ haven't had a chance to wear the lbd.
~~~Lead
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Before we can help you select a dress for her, you need to describe what she looks like more. Is she tall or short? What kind of body type? What color skin and hair? Etc. A dress that looks fantastic on one woman might look terrible on another.
Maybe too short? Still covers the knees...(just )
Posted by Túrin (Member # 2704) on :
5'7" Very fair skin Really red hair, uncut Lots o' freckles Brown eyes Killer smile And much much more!
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
What color is your kilt/jacket?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
If you're in San Francisco, you might want to try some of the vintage boutiques. Sometimes there is some beautiful, retro apparel there. Classics always work.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If your date is at all petite, consider a consignment shop; retro dresses tend to be both modest AND better-fitting for small women.
(As a side note, though, I must admit that I find it distressing that people are actually HELPING someone find more "modest" formal wear. I would normally dedicate my life to opposing this trend, if the trend weren't already heading in the other direction. *grin*)
[ September 22, 2003, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Túrin (Member # 2704) on :
If I were here, I'd try to get something that would match the blue or the green in your kilt, especially with her hair. Blue and green probably look great on her. But black is always good.
[ September 22, 2003, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by Túrin (Member # 2704) on :
Tom: (1) Yes. (2) Disappointing but not surprising.
Cheers.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*tweaks Turin's nose, then scampers away* You big silly. Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
What a hoot. Granted it's from Germany in 1908, but still.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Kayla, you are the bomb!
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: 5'7" Very fair skin Really red hair, uncut Lots o' freckles Brown eyes Killer smile And much much more!
Please excuse the awkward question, but what's her body like? Is she slim or heavy, large-busted or small, wide-hipped or narrow? How long is her hair (what part of her body does it reach)? What is the shape of her face?
Her coloring is Autum. Therefore, she should look for clothing in one or more of the following colors:
Oyster White: Your best white is oyster (beigish white). You may also wear ivory (a yellowish white) and the soft white from the Summer palette, but never pure white. It will make you look pale.
(Black and Gray): You have no black and gray, so you'll need to use dark charcoal brown as your black or charcoal gray and coffee brown as your gray. Coffee is any brown that has gray added.
Brown and Beige: All your beiges and browns are warm earth tones. Your dark chocolate brown and mahogany are rich colors. Camels, khakis, and tans are also good for you. Your bronze is an unusual color, flattering to an Autumn only.
Blue: A marine navy is the only navy that truly flatters the Autumn man. It is a navy tinged with teal or the color of the sea, and it's hard to find. You can wear any kind of teal blue, though the darker and richer the color, the better. Your turquoise is medium to dark and has warm yellow undertones. By comparing turquoises in the store, you can see that some are clear and bright (not for you), while others are yellower and slightly muted --- again a full-bodied color. Periwinkle is a blue with a violet cast. In general, you look best in a deep periwinkle.
Green: Your greens range from dark forest green to olive, jade, and grayed greens. You can wear any green that has a golden tone, from subtle to bright. A light, grayed green is excellent.
Gold and Yellow: Your golden-colors are plentiful. Choose gold in a quality fabric or this color may have an inexpensive look. You can wear any shade of gold, from light buff to mustard to a bright yellow-gold.
Orange: Your oranges include terra-cotta and rust colors, which are easy to find in all types of clothing. Your pumpkin and bright oranges are sport colors, good in prints or in solids for the less conservative.
Peach and Salmon: Your best peach, apricot, and salmon shades are deep. Use the light versions mixed with darker or brighter colors to add oomph. Salmon is your version of pink.
Red: You may wear any red with an orange base, ranging from bright orange-red to bitterwsweet and dark tomato (more muted shades). Your reds may get brownish, resembling maroon. Avoid burgundy, as it is too "blue" and harsh for you, thus bringing out any lines in your face.
This is from Color for Men, by Carole Jackson, but flattering colors for men are the same as for women. Only the types of clothes differ. Jeff
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
P.S. Bonduca recommends (and I concur) www.talbots.com. Talbots sells very conservative and high-quality clothing.
Jeff
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Good call, Jeffrey.
Sounds like she is the exact same coloring as me (long red hair, lots of freckles) (except my eyes are blue). Your book sounds like it was also based on the female-version book "Color Me Beautiful".
I'm also an Autumn, and probably most every redhead knows that she is. So, as you say, greens and also fall colors. I love wearing dark green for formal wear, myself.
Farmgirl
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Hey Túrin, chill out. Tom's post was clearly in jest, said with a *grin* and everything. And given after giving some actual helpful advice. Are you really that unable to smile at a little joke?
We've worked far too long to break Tom of his "j/k " habit for you to come along and mess with it now.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Farmgirl,
"Color for Men" is by the same author as "Color Me Beautiful" except, of course, that it's for men. Obviously, the reason I bought the one and not the other is because I myself am a man.
Yes, she's clearly an autumn. But we still have to get an idea of her body type before suggesting a dress style. I'm a big fan of the sheath dress, for instance, but it would look awful on a full-figured woman.
Jeff
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Al Franken calls that kind of humor "joking on the square". He doesn't think highly of it, to put it mildly.
Jeff
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think it's pretty ironic to think that Franken considers certain types of wit rude.
(And how was Tom to know how Túrin would react? I was certainly surprised.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Jeff, as much as I respect Al Franken, I don't usually rely on him for guidance or technique. But I appreciate the advice, and will certainly consider making a Mad Magazine-style parody of the Book of Matthew featuring a kilt-clad Turin being persecuted by the Jews; rest assured, it will be as funny and tasteful as Franken's own "parodies" of that sort.
[ September 23, 2003, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Tom,
Quick question: who do you think made more on comedy in the last couple of years, you or Al Franken? Given the choice, that person is the one whose advice on comedy I'll take.
BTW, what he calls "joking on the square" doesn't refer to actual humor. He refers to saying something that you really mean as if it were a joke. For instance, if I said, "You're really not a very nice guy, Tom. Just kidding! ", that would be "joking on the square".
Jeff
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Icarus,
You're missing the point. Franken's saying it's not comedy: just a pussilanimous way of saything something you really believe without having to take the flak for it. ("Hey, I was just joking! Lighten up!")
Jeff
[ September 23, 2003, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Jeffrey Getzin ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Jeff vs. Tom is my favorite Hatrack feud.
[ September 23, 2003, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Richard Dawson was always my favorite.
Jeff
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You're right, I was not getting it. Now that you've explained it I do.
So, um, then what leads you to believe Tom was doing this? Given that Tom almost certainly doesn't know Túrin or his lady friend, what is it that you believe Tom was only pretending to joke about? It seems quite clearly to be a joke to me, and a pretty innocuous one at that.
If he was such a bastard, why did he try to help Túrin in his post?
Could it be that the disagreements that you two have had in the past have led you to automatically jump to the conclusion that he's being a jerk pretty much no matter what he says?
[ September 23, 2003, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*pulls up a chair, salts the popcorn* Anybody wanna share?
[ September 23, 2003, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
::has popcorn, shares Hot Tamales::
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Icarus,
More likely, the disagreements that we have had in the past have made me more conscious of when he does this, and more likely to call him on it.
Jeff
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Round Two, with Icky as the proxy.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
"as the proxy"? Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
As the proxy for Tom. Tom's stepped out; he doesn't play these (normally).
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Oh, yeah, I agree. He's more a snipe-and-flee kind of guy.
Just kidding.
Jeff Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
::intentionally double-posts, to avoid bottom-of-page-itis::
Last time I'll post, because Tom can defend himself or not as he sees fit. The only reason I'm posting at all is because this baffles me.
quote:(As a side note, though, I must admit that I find it distressing that people are actually HELPING someone find more "modest" formal wear. I would normally dedicate my life to opposing this trend, if the trend weren't already heading in the other direction. *grin*)
Just what is it that you think Tom seriously meant in this post that he was trying to hide by pretending to be joking?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
So, what got deleted?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, let's not make this perfectly good thread unhappy, 'k?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I deleted my first post, when I saw that Jeffrey posted at the precise moment I did, turning the thread to page two. I felt that he might see his own new post on page two and not realize that there was another new post at the same time and thus not respond to me.
I want to "play by the rules," so I pointed it out as I did it and am explaining it now. No deceit intended.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I deleted mine. It was something along the lines of "Very clever, but not welcome.", but I decided it didn't matter and the posts spoke for themselves.
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
Okay, Jeff already gave my entertainment center a makeover (anyone wanna watch a movie?) and now I find he can give my wardrobe a makeover too!?
*wants to go shopping sooo bad now!*
I'm kind of clueless when it comes to dressing myself. It sounds like I fit into autum nicely, except for the pinks. I really don't think corals or salmons flatter me at all. I do, however, love wearing bronze, but then again I also like wearing pure black so there's probably no accounting for taste.
Also, I would agree with Bonduca's suggestion of Talbots. *feels vindicated*
Wish I could be of more help; the main requirement I have for dresses is that I must be able to wear a bra of some kind, and I would prefer to keep the dress long. I actually wish I could pull off a dress with a low back (not butt-crack low, but low).
Posted by Four thirty (Member # 5639) on :
This is kind of a pet peeve of mine (not being able to find modest dresses)... mostly because the women in my family tend to be fuller figured than most and today's fashions seem to be made for girls (definitely not women) with no breasts and/or hips. It's especially hard at prom time.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Four thirty and ladyday,
You just have to know where to look to find the right clothes for your body types. I'll warn you, though, that good clothing isn't always cheap. The generic stuff tends to go for the one-size-fits-none approach. You really have to go designer to find the best fit.
Actually, for the best fit, and if you have the cash, get a bespoke suit or dress made for you as an individual. Find a tailor whose work you respect, talk with him or her about what you'd like, and you may be able to design a you-centric outfit that will blow any off-the-wrack item away.
This reminds me of a funny exchange I had in a LARP once (sort of an acting game). I was playing a filthy-rich corporate sleezebucket who pretended to be a very nice guy with moderate success. One time, I was at a "party", when one of the other guests came up to me.
Him: Nice suit.
Me: Thank you. Giorgio Armani made it for me.
Him: I have mine custom-made.
Me: No, you don't understand: Giorgio Armani made it for me.
Jeff
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
BTW, if memory serves, Ann Taylor is an excellent designer for the non-waif woman. You may want to check her clothes out.
Jeff
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
ladyday is a waif, but I am not. I second Ann Taylor as an excellent source of clothing.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Well, Ladyday, if you're of the waif variety, then you can wear a low-back gown. You just need to find the right style you. Like with necklines, I think, the shape of the opening in the back is crucial to determining who can wear it and who can not.
Alas, there, my expertise ends. I really don't know what to tell you to look for, other than I know that it can work.
Your best bet? Check out designers who specialize in slim women. Even if you don't BUY from them, you can get an idea of what styles work and then buy them somewhere else. In particular, Italian manufacturers such as Armani and (I think) Prada are good for slim women, and will give you some ideas of what you can pull off.
Certainly, Armani designs his clothing for the slimmer European build. I have one of his suits, and it fits me perfectly except it's just a bit taut around the shoulders because of my American physique. If you fall on the thin side, Armani may be the guy for you!
Jeff
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
P.S. Armani is to clothing what Richard Burton was to acting. Armani makes some of the world's best clothing, but also some of the world's worst. Therefore, if you do shop Armani, be discriminating. Don't just buy for the name. Buy it because it looks good on you.
Jeff
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Ooh, ladyday in a mid-thigh slinky black sleeveless dress. Think Bateau neck. Straight across the neck, flowing into a deep V down the back.
Ooh, this is fun.
Posted by Túrin (Member # 2704) on :
To everyone who offered advice: thank you, very much. It turns out that she chose to go back to Macy's and get the glittery dress because of the time pressure, but I will save all the info to make use of it in the future.
To everyone who argued over me being offended by Tom: nothing makes a relatively new poster feel more welcome than when he gets somewhat offended, drops the subject, and then returns to find everyone leaping to the defense of the regular, the guy who least needs it and didn't care in the first place. Even spawned a new thread. Boy.
Just makes me want to not bother coming back. <insert "don't let the door hit you in the bum on the way out" post here> Yeah, don't worry, I'm never under the impression anyone cares, I'm just posting how I feel because I can.
Now, I had no intention of cluttering up the board with discussions of manners or offense or any of that, since Tom made it clear he wasn't interested in why I was offended, and since it was such a minor event.
But, it seems well enough couldn't be left alone, so now you get to hear my analysis of the thing. You brought it on yourselves.
As for the offending remark, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to figure that when someone is searching determinedly for modest clothing, it might be because they have some moral issue with the immodest kind. They might not be happy that the trend assuredly *is* towards the immodest. Having someone be pleased over the immodest trend is to be expected; having them *tell* me of their pleasure when it's fairly obvious I'm *not* pleased about it is rude in my opinion.
When I'm already offended at society for requiring me to go to great lengths to find apparel that *isn't* immodest, it's not a good time to rub in the fact that it's a widespread trend and will likely get even moreso as time goes on.
Grinning while rubbing it in doesn't help, unless one didn't actually approve of the trend either. Otherwise it makes it look *more* like it's intentionally offensive.
Nevertheless, I gave Tom the benefit of the doubt and considered that he might not have meant to offend or might care that he unintentionally did so, or that I might have misinterpreted what he said, or whatever. Me, when I accidentally offend someone, I usually express sorrow that they were offended, and then explain that I didn't mean to, and inquire why they were offended. Tom indicated he didn't care very much, and I left it at that. I didn't consider it a big deal.
Actually, considering I wrote less than 10 words about the thing, I shouldn't feel any responsibility for anything that came after. I didn't do it, I wasn't there, it wasn't my fault! Nevertheless, since I was involved in the whatever-it-was that was the catalyst, I thought I'd post a clarification of my thoughts, just so if anyone is going to think I'm a humourless jerk they do so for the right reason.
And I must admit, I'm always somewhat surprised to see people espousing the "you must not have a sense of humour if you got offended" view. That's right up there with "if you can't write a better book you have no right to criticise anyone else's writing"; it's long since been poked full of holes. It makes me think of: "Ender was almost surprised that Rabbit Army didn't already know they were hopelessly out of date."
There. It feels ridiculous to write so many words explaining such a tiny thing. I really *try* to just keep my mouth shut, but sometimes people conspire not to let me.
Túrin...
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but the important thing is, what does ladyday think about the dresses?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
So, um, to make you feel welcome, I should have ignored what appears to me to be a cranky refusal to take a jest in the spirit in which it was intended.
Because, after all, you're an infrequent poster and Tom isn't. So rather than cliqueishly rush to Tom's defense, "we" should side with you or stay the heck out of it.
I'm just trying to get this. Because it sounds to me like you're suggesting that Tom's position as a regular poster should actually work against him.
Incidentally, who are all of these people who have leaped to Tom's defense? I count myself and Ralphie (since Tom himself didn't care to). On the other side, I count you and Jeffrey, who snipes back and forth with Tom pretty much each time he resurfaces.
You see conspiracies. I see paranoia.
Tom might have been more likely to respond with concern for your feelings if you had posted them less aggressively. "Offense received" implies that offense was intended. You didn't give him the benefit of the doubt, despite the fact that he tried to be helpful to you. His post to you was an attempt to help and an attempt to be humorous. If you found the humor inappropriate, you could have said so, but instead you called him a churl. Would you really examine your motives and apologize if someone treated you like this, or would you simply decide you didn't care what this person thought?
As for your alleged sense of humor, I will await more evidence of its existence before passing judgment.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Really - get to the important stuff, Turin . . .
I'm glad someone thought of the boutiques and/or classy second-hand stores - you can really find a treasure or two in those places . . .
{edited to add: dang it, Icarus - you interrupted my flow, I was trying to back Kayla up on getting this thread back on track to women's dresses and such . . . sigh}
[ September 23, 2003, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: Shan ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Oh, and it's nice how you assume that Ralphie and I defend Tom not because we think you're out of line, but because we're cliquish.
Apparently we can't possibly form opinions for ourselves.
We're famous followers, we two . . .
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Icarus!!!!
Go read my whiny thread and give me sympathy, would ya, friend?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
::goes::
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Thanks.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Thanks Shan. You're my new favorite "poster of the day." Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Kayla,
That first dress is a sheath dress, and I agree, it's very flattering on a petite woman. Think Audrey Hepburn in "Sabrina". Excellent choice.
The only thing I'd question is the frills at the top. The smaller you are, the less "noise" you want in your outfit for fear of "disapearing" in it.
Jeff
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
BTW, Icarus said in the post at the top of the page:
quote: Last time I'll post, because Tom can defend himself or not as he sees fit. The only reason I'm posting at all is because this baffles me.
and then went on to post four more times on the subject.
Jeff
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Yeah, I didn't like that neck line much. I was looking for one that had a Bateau neck, but that was the first one I ran across and thought it looked cool. I might buy it and alter the neckline though. ( Like I actually know how to sew. )
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
You could always ask a tailor to alter your dress for you. I did that for my father when he was buying his tuxedo for my brother's wedding.
Modern tuxedo manufacturers cheap out on the design of tuxedos by using the same equipment and patterns used for suits. So a lot of the individual touches of the dinner jacket are lost, much to the detriment of the owner.
In this case, the besom pockets were there, but a flap had been added by the manufacturer as part of the production process. So I simply instructed the tailor to remove the flaps. Problem solved.
If you see a dress you like with a frilly bit you don't, you can check to see how the frills are attached. If it's simple enough, a good tailor should be able to detach it. Your best bet is to take it to the tailor's while the dress is still returnable and get his opinion on the subject. That way, if it's unfeasible, or would look terrible, you can just return the thing.
Jeff
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Túrin-
I'm trying to articulate how I feel about this. There are a few things I know I know: 1) Tom would never intentionally offend anyone, even in times of feeling attacked; 2) I believe you took offense pre-emptively, and did not stop to think that, while you had a rant, there may have been no clear indication that this was something that very, very specifically touched a nerve with you; 3) I've worked for MONTHS (literally) to get Tom to stop putting "j/k " at the end of his quips and jokes, even in the face of his arguement that people tend to take him "more seriously than others;" 4) I felt all my hard work was being undermined; 5) Jeffrey Getzin jumped on this surprisingly fast (and forgive me Jeff) leading me to believe he may be very subjectively defensive about Tom in particular, and so therefore added weight to something I believed carried little to no water; 6) And finally, I know that I'm really, really sorry that a newbie has gotten such an initially bad taste in his mouth about Hatrack.
So, lump all these things together, and you get my spin-off thread. To be honest, because you and Tom had both pretty much dropped it, I was almost mostly responding to Jeffrey's assertion that his being sensitive to Tom perhaps made him more aware of Tom's perceived barbs. (Jeff, dude, I know you believe you have a stellar sense of humor, but you know that you can be over-sensitive sometimes. It's all over you.) I do not believe this is the case, and so therefore started a purposely cheeky thread (or, at least, INTENDED to be cheeky) about Tom and preventing the reoccurance of his "j/k ."
Seriously. Months, dude. We've worked long and hard for this. As Jebus is my witness, I'll take a bullet to prevent the funny from being ruined once again just because people are extra-special sensitive to Tom.
And, what's even funnier, is that Tom - for reasons known only to the dark powers of the universe - can't get away with HALF the crap I pull. I run around making offensive and sometimes vitriolic statements, and nobody calls me on any of it. Whereas Tom, who is far more sensitive to the needs of others than I am, gets jumped on in ridiculous numbers for things I can't even begin to fathom the perceived inappropriate nature of.
I tend to be really thick-skinned, so I just assume everyone else. I actually admire people who are more sensitive than I, because often times they couch their words more carefully and are far more actively aware how they are affecting other people. I drop bombs, and la la la my way along. But, see, I know Tom is not like me. And so to see him get nailed for something no one would have blinked an EYELASH if I had said, well, it makes me a little surprised and irritated at the double-standard.
So, I defend Tom. Cause he doesn't do himself. He's learned to take the high road. I still have yet to do so.
I seriously want you to stick around. You seem really smart, and cool, and while you may be more sensitive than I would be, that's a GOOD thing. Balancing scales with differing personalities is what makes Hatrack such a sweet pad to dwell in. But please don't believe anyone ever intends offense, because they get smacked down right quick with the Pimp Hand of Justice if they do.
Except for some reason me, who everyone lets get away with everything. Which boggles the mind.
[ September 23, 2003, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Actually, Jeffrey, no.
That was my last post in response to you on the topic of "joking on the square" and whether or not this is what Tom was doing. I posted once more to explain what had gotten deleted, twice in response to Túrin, who I could only assume was referring to me though he didn't directly say so, only numbering me among scores of TomD fans, and then once in response to Shan. And of course, this post.
I didn't mean to suggest I was done posting in the thread, just that I had said my peace regarding your perception of Tom. I hope, for instance, that in the theoretical case of me having fashion advice to offer (ha!) my post wouyld still be welcome. Sorry if I was unclear. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
And I wish I had as much class as Ralphie does. Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
i have class
at 11:00 tomorrow.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
And I have class on Friday at six.
You know, I like ALL the people involved.
Don't make ME come over there with my stick!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Turin, it just never occurred to me to think of you as a fragile newbie. For that matter, it never occurred to me to consider that the prevention of partial nudity was an issue into which you had invested a great deal of emotional capital -- not least because, let's face it, it takes a certain amount of cheek to consider a kilt "modest" attire, or even to aspire to modesty in San Francisco. All jokes aside (well, not really), I've found that while partial nudity is not generally something I can encourage in myself, it IS in fact something that brings me a great deal of joy in others.
You might even consider me a former activist for that cause, as I spent a great deal of my youth encouraging the lovely people of my acquaintance to wear less clothing.
This is not to say that I don't respect your lifestyle choice; I recognize that there are many challenges and pitfalls out there for the differently-nude, not the least of which involves the location of clothing designed to cater to the excessively dressed. My own wife suffers from this mindset, and while I've struggled to help her overcome it, I've also learned a bit about how to live with her condition.
----
Seriously, man, I'm sorry you didn't get the joke -- but, like I said earlier, I'm not sorry I made the joke. I'd make it again in a heartbeat, even. That is, to be perfectly honest, a joke I would make if the POPE were asking me for help finding his girlfriend something less slinky. Maybe ESPECIALLY then.
Frankly, it's like dangling chum; it's like someone saying something about being touched in Papa Moose's presence, and NOT expecting him to, well, you know.
But, again, as I said earlier, I AM sorry that I'm not sorrier. It was never my intention to offend, and while I don't personally think you SHOULD have been offended, I can certainly understand if you just haven't built up a resistance to jokes about the popularity of skimpy clothing and will avoid jokes of that sort in the future, at least insofar as they concern anonymous women of your acquaintance.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ok, I went away from the thread, took lots of deep breaths, and now I'm not mad anymore. Ok, maybe a little.
Túrin was not the only one who was offended by Tom's comment. I considered saying something, but before I could decide one way or the other, Túrin had already done so -- which made my potential comment unnecessary.
Now, I probably would not have said anything. I like Tom, and do not think he would be deliberately hurtful, and I was sure he had not meant to be offensive.
I was actually far more annoyed at his response to Túrin, which seemed flippant and dismissive. I was, in fact, ticked enough that I knew I could not respond without being nasty. So I avoided the thread for a while.
Then I saw Ralphie's thread. I was seriously annoyed -- actually, I started to IM her several times. But I couldn't come up with anything that wasn't an extreme overreaction. I went back and read the rest of this thread, and realized she might not have been primarily addressing Túrin.
I bit my tongue, and said nothing. (I have a tendency to fly off the handle, and I've been trying not to.)
But I can see why Túrin feels attacked -- although I'm fairly certain that was not anyone's intention.
[Edit: Naturally Tom would post while I was writing this.]
[ September 23, 2003, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
So, basically Tom, you'd like it if all the women you find attractive in the world wore less clothing for your ogling pleasure? Creepy. And, one of the reasons I dislike men so much.
Or were you encouraging the cute guys you knew to wear less clothing also?
Okay, let's drop this and get back to little black dresses.
Posted by * (Member # 4842) on :
I read that as Tom was encouraging the females in his life to feel more confident in themselves, which sounded sweet to me. But that's just what I got out of that.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Well, I suppose one could read it that way, but I sure as heck didn't. Most because of this quote.
quote: I spent a great deal of my youth encouraging the lovely people of my acquaintance to wear less clothing.
Sounds to me like he was trying to talk chicks into wearing less clothing. Not raising their self-esteem, for which, I'm sure there are better exercises than mini skirts and plunging neck lines.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So, basically Tom, you'd like it if all the women you find attractive in the world wore less clothing for your ogling pleasure? Creepy."
Oh, good lord. Look, I could just poke you with a sharp stick to deflate your sense of outrage, but let's face it: OF COURSE I would like it if all the women I found attractive decided to start wearing less clothing specifically to enable me to ogle them better.
What a remarkably silly question. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You forgot "j/k" Tom.
It helps for people to know when you're joking. Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Holy hell. What is up with the righteous indignation.
I, Ralphie, would like to say that I wish I could gather up all the men on the planet that I think are hot, line them up and pat their bottoms as they go by.
I'm not kidding. This is not hyperbole. If you add a double, 12 oz. Mexican Mocha with whipped cream and bagel with cream cheese in there and a masseuse we're talking about my idea of PARADISE.
Creepy? Yes. I fully intend to take advantage of my old age at around eighty years old and cop feels on all the hot young men because I know they won't be able to call me on it.
It's life, people. We all have our thang. Is Tom any more lecherous than I am? Of course not. He just happens to be male and he's not even talking about TOUCHING. Why the double standard?
*pants*
Okay, you know. I think I need to take rivka's lead and leave the thread for a little. I should never post in irritation, and I'm seriously toeing that line.
I'm sorry.
[ September 24, 2003, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
So you mean all this time you've just been ogling my (virtual) body, Ralphie?!?!
I'm really creeped out.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I think a lot of it is about context.
If Tom had made a statement about wanting women to wear less in most threads, I would've and ignored it. I am fully aware of the fact that many people think this is a good thing. And I strongly believe that my views are MINE -- I really try hard not to push them on anyone else.
But in a thread where someone was bemoaning the fact that it's difficult to find modest clothing, I thought it was uncalled for.
Then again, the resulting kerfuffle was DEFINITELY not called for. Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
rivka - You don't have months worth of anti-"j/k " propaganda at stake!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
True.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Mmmmm... partial nudity... <drools>
Yes, I can post from my computer again! Hoo-freaking-ray!
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Wow... I left the thread yesterday after work and only just get back on today (I'm down under..it's a time difference thing)
Last thing I knew people were posting links to nice dresses and now...
As a newbie also it seems to me that a lot of people are quick to take offence at things that aren't meant to be offensive. I personally don't have a problem with dressing in a way which some people would perceive as immodest. I think I said so earlier in the thread. I can understand other people feel differently.
But really... how many clothes people do/don't wear - it's a personal issue (maybe religous, maybe moral, maybe just fashion!) and surely not something to get mad/upset over!
But that's just what I think...
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Get back in your box, newbie! (j/k )
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think this dispute goes back to Annie's thread on nudity in art. There are those of us who believe that nudity is sacred and those of us who believe nudity isn't. I'm hazarding a guess that it is probably fairly closely correlated to where people fall on the gay marriage issue because of the differing views of "sacredness" there help cause the opposing conclusions.
The problem is that the attitudes are so unconscious on both sides that neither side realizes how diametrically opposing their views are until a kerfluffle (I love that word) like this. Then everyone gets offended without stopping to consider the true underlying causes.
Another thought on self consciousness. I don't believe either side is "for" being self conscious, but their prescriptions for the problem are entirely different as are the percieved causes of the self-consciousness in the first place.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
and... I wish I had half of the fashion sense of Jeffery G. I didn't get the female fashion gene or jeans and it shows in both cases.
Did you get it all from that book? I definitely think that should go on my must read list. Though I guess I shouldn't really expect too much fashion sense from myself since I'm left-handed female engineer.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Banna, I'm not sure there actually WAS a "dispute." Did anybody here disagree about anything?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
We disagreed about whether or not you're a jerk.
Well, actually I guess we didn't.
(j/k )
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Do you really need me to spell it out for you Tom? Especially when a lot of people were disputing on your behalf.
Except I suspect you just made the above remark in the exact same sort of semi-sarcastic facetiousness that you made the first remark, and now I'm the one taking you too literally, even though in a certain way you do mean exactly what you said in both cases.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*sigh* The problem is, I was not remotely offended by Tom's first post, but I'm mildly offended by the explanation of it.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Are you offended at my explanation/reasoning specifically Kat?
AJ
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Who's on first?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, I'm actually offended by Tom's explanation of it, but it involves things that are very, very much none of my business.
The difference between Tom being racy and Ralphie being racy is that Ralphie teases about herself as much as about other people - she doesn't hold herself above the cheesecake she's ogling. Tom does - he doesn't tease about himself, he most certainly (and rightly) doesn't tease about his wife, but he does tease about other people skanking for his benefit. That's irritating.
So, either he's just teasing and therefore should have no problem including himself in it, or else he's not teasing, and people have quite a nice reason to be offended.
[ September 24, 2003, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The thing is, Anna, it really ISN'T a dispute -- unless you genuinely think that I've been acting as a stalwart advocate for skimpier clothing.
And while I'll be the first one to admit that I am, in fact, a stalwart advocate for skimpier clothing, I don't take the issue nearly seriously enough to have a DISPUTE over it. *grin*
The people here who're having an argument are having one WITHOUT me; they're directing their complaints towards imaginary people who have yet to post in this thread -- and while I'm sure they're perfectly welcome to do so, it's a rather one-sided "debate" in that sense.
The only "dispute," as I see it, has been over whether or not it's fair to joke about something that someone else takes seriously. While I agree that there are lines which can be drawn in times like these -- joking about the amount of makeup on the corpse of someone's recently-deceased grandmother, for example, is probably not a good idea -- I think it's possible to recognize that the vast majority of human beings draw these lines fairly close to the bone, and not way out in, metaphorically speaking, San Francisco. The "dispute," then, is over whether or not it's safe to tease somebody about an issue you assume to be harmless, and whether it's then necessary to abjectly apologize when that teasing is either misinterpreted or hits a nerve.
Since the thread's about modest clothing, though, I've asked more than once that we try to stick to THAT topic -- since it's much more interesting to me than trying to figure out why a small handful of people take other people's nudity personally.
-----
Here's a corollary to my earlier posts designed to help kat feel better about my position on skimpy clothing, one that I had assumed was implicit: attractive people should be encouraged to wear less. I am assuming that Turin and his lady friend are attractive, since my default assumption for MOST people is that they're attractive. Me, I'm not attractive, and therefore do people the courtesy of wearing clothing -- thus avoiding any situations in which pedestrians, alarmed by the possibility of a beached whale in a downtown area, try to airlift me to the ocean.
[ September 24, 2003, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, I know one thing I do agree with Ralphie and Icarus about. That j/k thing has got to go.
Icarus, you've made your point. Now for the love of all that is decent, please stop.
( j/k)
[ September 24, 2003, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
Sorry, I can only post on Hatrack from work now or I would have responded sooner. First off, I'm 5'10", which I think boots me out of the petite catagory. I am slim (having dropped two sizes after EnderCon) but am neither small nor waif-like.
Kayla, I think I like the first dress best. Not sure how I would look with the drapey neckline (is that going to bring out my big shoulders or cover them up?) but I think the dress comes together nicely.
I am just realizing after some browsing for dresses that I am much more picky than I thought at first. This one is nice except for the halter style neck, that one is great except for that big bow, no I will not wear that color, and so on...jeez, no wonder my husband hates shopping with me! Normally I hate shopping too, but this is fun because there's no pressure . But now I want my very own little black dress.
We just need to plan a hatrack shopping trip.
Posted by Vána (Member # 3262) on :
I am so in for a Hatrack shopping trip!
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Though I guess I shouldn't really expect too much fashion sense from myself since I'm left-handed female engineer.
So, as a right-handed male engineer, should I have more, less, or the same amount of fashion sense as you?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: The "dispute," then, is over whether or not it's safe to tease somebody about an issue you assume to be harmless, and whether it's then necessary to abjectly apologize when that teasing is either misinterpreted or hits a nerve.
Yeah and this is where political correctness gets take to its rediculous extreme. I guess I would fall on the side of giving a sincere apology along the lines of "I'm sorry I didn't know that this was offensive to you." But not an abject one, in that you are sorry for saying it at all and would never say a remark like that again. Because, you really aren't sorry for saying it, you are just sorry that it was construed badly by the other person. And yes, there is probably a deeper fundamental disagreement, but one that may not be fundamental enough to argue about, because you can co-exists more peacefully in the community by tetting it go not arguing about it.
And, speaking of clothing, when is Christy coming down here for our lingere shopping trip?!
AJ (edit, stupid typo)
[ September 24, 2003, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But not an abject one, in that you are sorry for saying it at all and would never say a remark like that again. Because, you really aren't sorry for saying it, you are just sorry that it was construed badly by the other person."
Yeah. That's kind of exactly what I did. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Saxy Find the statistical probabilities on
1) being a female engineer 2) being left handed 3) being a left-handed engineer 4) number of engineers with fashion sense
I know you can definitely find numbers on 1 and 2, 3 might be a little trickier but not too difficult since most lefties go into artistic fields.
#4 has to be less than 30%, so you do the math!
AJ
(just realized since most lefties are artistic their fashion sense might be higher than the rest of the population, but I think the "engineer with fashion sense" statistic overhwelms any of that)
AJ
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: Did you get it all from that book? I definitely think that should go on my must read list. Though I guess I shouldn't really expect too much fashion sense from myself since I'm left-handed female engineer.
I wish I could have gotten it all from a book, but no: a lot of it was trial and error. Things like wearing a white suit and having people ask if I was the Good Humor man, or wearing a fedora and having people call me "Indiana".
But you can learn the basics pretty easily. That book "Color Me Beautiful" would be an excellent start for you in terms of identifying the colors that work for you. Next, identify women with your body type and hair style that you find attractive and notice what they're wearing.
In terms of color, when I buy a shirt or a tie, or anything that goes near my face, I usually hold it up next to my face in the mirror and see how my face looks next to that color. Does it bring out my eyes? Does it make me look pale and sickly? Or green? You don't have to know why a certain color or texture works for you; you just have to know if it does indeed work.
If you know of any fashion magazines that feature normal-looking women (instead of the sticks or the double-Ds), it might help to subscribe ... but only if you like that magazine's sense of style. But keep in mind that the photos in there are airbrushed, and no amount of clothes, diet, and makeup could possibly make you look like the photos. Use them as a suggestion only, and not as a goal.
And finally, experiment. Wear a different combination and look at the eyes of the people around you. How do they respond to you?
Jeff
P.S. This being said, since my layoff, I've been dressing like a total slob. You see, now I work from home, so comfort is more important than style at the moment. Nowadays, a dress up day is when I wear shoes. Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I may have misinterpreted your statement, then, AJ. So, were you saying that the odds of having all of the qualities of femaleness, engineerness, left-handedness, and fashion sense are low? In that case, I'd have to agree with you.
I think the statement as written implies, rather, that your lack of fashion sense is a result of you being female, left-handed, and an engineer. And in that case, I'd have to disagree. Two out of those three qualities are more than likely working for you. Still, you're probably right in that the engineer nature overwhelms the other two.
[ September 24, 2003, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Ladyday,
5'10 and slim is an excellent combination. A lot of fashion models fall into that category, so you, better than most women, might actually have better success looking good in what looks good on the runway or in the catalogs.
Since you're not petite, you don't have to stay completely clear of ornamentation, just so long as you don't overdo it.
"I'm having an accessory crisis." - Steve Martin in Leap of Faith
Jeff
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yeah but IMO people are more likely to tell guys when they look awful. They don't tell women for fear of hurting their feelings. Steve (my bf) is the only person I know honest enough to tell me to go back and change if I'm wearing some hideous color combination that I haven't even noticed.
For example, I was wearing what I thought was a blue button up shirt, with reddish-brown jeans. However I didn't realize that the overall looking blue shirt was actually tiny black and blue checks and that the both the black, and the hue of blue, clashed with said pants. (I can see Mrs. M cringing now) In fact I got home from work that day when Steve looked at me and said "My god, please tell me you didn't go to work in that!"
And, when I actually looked at it and analyzed it he was right. But, was anybody at work about to tell me that? Heck, no! Though I was probably saved by the fact that I do work with a bunch of guys who aren't terribly fashion conscious themselves. And these are the mistakes I can make with jeans and t-shirts. If I didn't work in a lab and had to dress up for an office every day I'd be really screwed.
What's even sadder is that Steve is also a left handed engineer, and he has more fashion sense than me.
AJ
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
I love fluff threads that turn into discussions of some real issue that nobody suspected was there!
I'm a right handed female engineer but I sort of go for the schoolgirl look. I tend to like clothes that are way too young for me. My nieces love to borrow my clothes, in fact. I feel happy when wearing mid-thigh skirts, either the slim type or pleated plaid ones sort of like my old parochial school uniforms, and ribbed tights. I don't usually wear stockings. Those are for grown ups.
But the last place I worked told me my skirts were too short. I was like shocked that they would say this. That they would be thinking like that about me. I think it must have been because they didn't know me well at the time.
Am I wrong to expect to be allowed to wear things that are not ankle-length without it being taken as a come-on? Isn't this more or less the same idea as the Taliban had by requiring women to wear black tents in public? Something about this seems not right to me. But I can't quite say what.
In the same way, the idea that morals require women to wear very modest clothing seems not quite right to me. Different people have different styles, and comfort levels, no doubt. Yet to make it a moral issue seems off base to me. What do you guys think?
[ September 24, 2003, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Saxy, yeah I think that the combined probabilities of someone being a left-handed-female engineer are such that said person (me ) has a brain sufficiently skewed towards the linear direction that fashion sense is overwhelmed.
Maybe a better way of putting it is that I am the exact opposite of most statistical generalities that would lead towards fashion sense.
Maybe a better way, though I'm not trying for a mathematical proof is
arty lefty - common (likely to have fashion sense) engineer lefty - uncommon (negates any possible fashion sense benefit)
female- common (likely to have fashion sense) engineer female- uncommmon (negates possible fashion sense benefit)
engineer by definition = someone with bad fashion sense
So when you multiply it out my fashion sense which was already at at least at -x due to upbringing turns into (-x)^3 which is hard to overcome!
AJ
Added on this edit because it was a choice between send it or lose it since the IT lady was here for adobe acrobat updates and needed me to shut down everything.
[ September 24, 2003, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
And if it's an important moral issue that women wear modest clothes, is it true of men too? Why don't we seem to hear about that ever? It seems to me that guys just wear whatever they feel comfortable in and don't worry about it. That's sort of how I feel it should be for women too. Why is there such a difference?
I understand that this probably is one of those things that most people feel doesn't need explaining, but since I don't have the instincts or feelings or whatever it is that makes it go without saying, I'd like to hear someone attempt an explanation. Is there one?
[ September 24, 2003, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
They did have to speak with my boss about the speedo at the company picnic. That was embarassing for everyone.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
ak, it probably had nothing to do with whether they knew you well enough or even with anyone “thinking like that” about you. If the company has a dress code, mid-thigh skirts are most likely too short. But don’t worry, there’s plenty of room for compromise between mid-thigh and ankle length.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Aren't men's clothes, at least formal or professional wear, generally already more modest than women's?
Or do you think this slit is too high? (jk )
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:(jk )
Icarus, don't start down that road. At first it's all in jest, but before you know it you won't be able to stop.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
No, no, you look just fine.
::covertly oogles Icarus::
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
dkw, wasn't the Taliban's law about the black tent things also just a dress code? What makes a dress code okay or not okay? That's my question. I'm asking a moral question about dress codes and what constitutes modest dress, and why the word "modest" seems to be applied almost exclusively to female clothes and not male.
[ September 24, 2003, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Actually, I would say that at my old school acceptable attire for women was much more comfortable than acceptable attire for men, if comfort is now the issue.
Women could wear a skirt or slacks, and a nice shirt. The shirt could be buttoned or not. Shoes could be heeled or flats. Men had to shave daily (or have a well-groomed beard), wear a collar shirt, and wear a tie. If a woman was wearing slacks and socks, nobody would know if she had shaved her legs or not. My skin is very sensitive, and shaving and wearing a tie irritated it to no end.
Of course, everything about that place was irritating. (j/k )
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
saxon: *sob* I know! I can't stop myself! STOP ME! (j/k )
aka, what do you think of what I said?
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
That it's not about comfort, but about the complicated interplay of sex and gender in our society. Women are perceived primarly sexually, so their clothes are always seen in this light. Even little girl clothes. Men are not seen this way so modesty or lack of is not an issue in their clothes.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
No, not that post. I'm talking about my comment that men's clothes generally are more modest than women's clothes--which of course speaks to your point regarding the objectification of women and girls. I personally find it very distasteful when I see words written on the seat of little girls' shorts.
I'm gonna make a pair of shorts like that. Mine will say "Big Butt." (j/k )
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
When I first got to Dallas, I dated someone (briefly. disasterously.) who worked on a different floor (different area - not a co-worker) of the office. Thursdays is the day you can wear a Scout uniform if you have one.
Heaven help me, I now think Scoutmaster uniforms are sexy. I've been scarred for life.
[ September 24, 2003, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I think that modesty is an issue for men's clothing as well (see kat's swimsuit story ), but the lines are drawn a little higher, er, lower. Well, both, actually.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay, I have to admit that one of my stories was a lie.
I'm not saying which one.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
That's twice you've made me laugh out loud in the last five minutes!
(j/k )
[ September 24, 2003, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Ah, I see. I wasn’t commenting on the morality of dress codes, just on your implication that it had something to do with their perception of your character. (Or perhaps only my inference of your implication . . .) If they had a dress code, then how well they knew you was irrelevant.
But on the issue of dress codes, I see a major difference between a corporation having a dress code for employees while at work and a country having a dress code for women all the time. And I don’t think that it has as much to do with morality as professionalism. Some jobs require a uniform. Others require a certain mode of dress, but not quite as stringent as a uniform. If the dress code is extremely restrictive, or definitely biased (ie: if the men were allowed to wear shorts exposing their knees but you weren’t allowed to wear a short skirt) then I could see a problem.
But I do agree with you that using “modest” as a synonym for “less revealing” in women’s clothing is problematic, as is associating it with virtue. I prefer to think in terms of “appropriate for the place/occasion.” I show a lot more skin at the beach then I do at work, and I wear much tighter clothes to work out than I do to go visiting. I don’t think that makes me less modest at some times than others. It just makes me dressed appropriately for the situation.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I swear, Icky, you're begging for a swirlie.
(j/k )
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Is the Taliban's rule about not going outside without your tent the exact same thing as the rule about skirt length? Isn't the difference only one of degree? Why do we feel the first is wrong and the second is okay? At what point does it change from being opressive to being a good thing?
I once heard a lady being harshed on at church (not my church) for showing one inch of cleavage, for instance. I thought there was something wrong about that too.
For me the wrongness, I think, comes from it being involuntary. From it being imposed from without. I felt creeped out when they said that to me about my skirts being too short. I wanted to ask what are people doing looking at my legs instead of doing their jobs? Maybe we should put blinders on them instead, since the problem seems to be there.
I want you to know that my thinking about this comes from 45 years of changing dress codes. When I was in primary school girls were required to wear dresses, even on very cold days when our knees would freeze. The serious reason given when I asked a teacher once was that the shapes of the little girls' bottoms seen in pants would distract the boys.
There's something wrong with that whole idea, I feel. From the Taliban to Mrs. Sattewite's 4th grade class to my old workplace.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
And once again I applaud both Anne Kate and dkw.
The whole question of "what is appropriate" is a difficult one to judge though. I know I probably often pick inappropriate outfits due to my lack of fashion sense. A burlap bag can be modest but inappropriate.
Last night I went to an Chicago Symphony orchestra concert. We were way up at the top in the gallery. The acoustics are great everywhere, but the gallery is so steep that you can get vertigo looking down at the orchestra. We had quite the bird's eye view. One female violinist was wearing a black dress that from our high vantage point was transparent. I doubt it would have appeared so transparent standing in front of a mirror. But from above you could clearly see her legs through it. I confess that out of morbid curiosity I loooked to see if I could see her underwear. There was a music stand in the way so I couldn't determine if it was visible or not.
So would the jury of Hatrack consider the said dress the woman was wearing inappropriate or not?
AJ
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
quote:The serious reason given when I asked a teacher once was that the shapes of the little girls' bottoms seen in pants would distract the boys.
This may be urban legend, but my husband's sociology teacher at the University of Maryland told his class that when they first allowed women to attend the University, women were not allowed to drink from water fountains because their wet lips would cause unnecessary excitement for the men.
I got a hard time from teachers at my school for the way I dressed, but then, I was dressing with the intent to disrupt and get attention. So maybe it was good that people tried to put a stop to my obnoxious behavior. That's not a conclusion of any kind, mind, just my experience.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Most symphony budgets are dreadfully underfunded. Maybe it was deliberate?
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Icky, I don't know the answer. Do mens' clothes cover more? Show the shape of the body less? Are womens' clothes always about attractiveness while mens' are not? I honestly have no idea. Mens' clothes can be yummier or less yummy, for sure. But no mens' dress code ever seems to specify things like skirt length that speak to sexuality content.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Oh yes, and I wore, dark navy slacks, a pink sweater and tennis shoes to the concert. I also had a bright red jacket which is probably a fashion faux pas too but it was warm. Considering the amount of walking I was going to be doing there was no way I was wearing dress shoes. I know I've been told that if you buy expensive enough dress shoes, they will be comfortable, but I have yet to find a female dress shoe that is actually comfortable. I would probably be willing to spend $200 dollars on said pair of shoes too but I haven't seen any yet.
AJ
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
AJ, I don't have the same social instincts as anyone else. But to me the important thing about this chick is how well she played her violin. I can't imagine giving her attire more than passing notice.
Is it what you can see that's important? Or what the person is intending to say? Or both or neither?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
The Chicago Symphony Orchestra is one of the more prestigious and best-funded orchestras in the world. I don't think it was a funding issue. The dress looked extremely expensive, not cheap.
AJ
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
While I was a major proponent for this thing twirling out of control, I'm really glad that this thing got pretty much back on topic.
I love Hatrack.
(j/k )
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
AJ - try Aerosoles. I have a pair of brown leather dress sandals with three-inch heels from aerosoles that I wear all day about three times a week because they are so comfortable. Best $70 I ever spent.
And... *hides head in arms* I was totally kidding about funding for the symphony. I'm starting to become sympathetic to Tom's j/k use.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The "funding issue" thing was, I'm sure, a joke suggesting that scantily-dressed violinists might lead to an increase in audience interest. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The reason why I noticed was not because I was being the "fashion police". I know my fashion is deficient and would never presume to judge (and I don't think I have passed judgment on the woman, I've just relayed an incident that happened and asked for Hatrack's opinioin.) I noticed because I was trying to count skirts to figure out the ratio of women to men in the orchestra. For that matter in an orchestra most of the time even female celloists or bassists are allowed to wear black dress slacks though their instruments are held between their legs.
AJ
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
How offensive!
(j/k )
[Edit--Good lord you people are posting quickly! This was supposed to come just after Tom's latest post.]
[ September 24, 2003, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
dkw, I think the implication of morality or virtue comes with assuming what someone is trying to say by what they wear. I was shocked when my former workplace seemed to be seeing something sexual in my clothes which I saw differently.
I am trying to puzzle out some objective model of what is going on here so that I can understand and know what is right. As I said, I don't seem to have the instincts that other people have about this.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
ack, I'm sorry kat! I'm all for smilies. I appreciate deadpan humor but often times the appreciation is only gained painfully after the pan has come back to hit me on the head!
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I have owned a pair of Naturalizers, professionally fitted at Nordstrom's and everything. They still pinched my toes in the wide model though they were better than most.
I think I've had a pair of aerosoles too, in fact I think they are in the back of my closet. The cushioning was comfy and they didn't pinch my toes but they rubbed the back of my heels raw instead.
AJ
(I didn't think that men's feet were built that much differently than women's but they must be because the only shoes that ever fit me are size 8.5 men's)
AJ
[ September 24, 2003, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
And what I was saying was that it’s possible that no one at your workplace was seeing anything sexual in your clothes at all. Perhaps they have had trouble in the past with women wearing “sexy” skirts and now have a standard policy that skirts must be knee-length or longer. I’d much rather work at a place that did it that way than at a place that examined skirts on an individual basis to determine how sexy they were intended to be.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
ak, I don't know that an "objective model" is possible. The entire issue is subjective.
And I am far more concerned about Taliban rules prohibiting women from attending school, working, and so forth than what they required them to wear.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Banna, perhaps you have mutant feet? <insert winking smile or not, as needed>
I’ve loved every pair of Naturalizer shoes I’ve ever had. I once walked five miles, through the woods, in a pair of 2 inch heels (no, this was not a planned hike) with no trouble at all.
Posted by Túrin (Member # 2704) on :
I'm a whiny crybaby oversensitive loser that's inferior to all of you. I admit it.
Bye.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well, that's unfortunate.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm only a mutant crybaby oversensitive loser when wearing heels.
*wiggles mutant toes in men's 8.5 tennis shoes happily*
AJ
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Whoa.
You know, I'd almost say I'm really sorry, but I'm just not down with grown people throwing what seems suspiciously similar to tantrums.
-------
(j/k )
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Didn't we have another Turin way back when? Maybe Jeff Fore or somebody like that?
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Yes. But Rakeesh has been absent for a long time.
(j/k )
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Right, Turin=Jeff Fore=Rakeesh. That's why I kept failing to think of this guy as a newbie.
Whatever happened to Rakeesh, anyway? Did he vanish in a huff, or did his life get too busy for Hatrack, or what?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Wow, a lot went on here since I last left.
I wasn't offended by Tom's original post, but by the subsequent explanation. (Scary that kat and I agree on that, no? )
All y'all keep calling Turin a newbie, but did you notice that his registration date was 2001? That's not really what I would call a n00b.
Anne Kate, if the woman in the symphony had been wearing a string bikini, would you have noticed? I think that there is appropriate clothing for certain places. If you work at McDonald's you wear the McDonald's uniform. If you work in an office, you wear office attire. (You know, suit, skirt, whatever that particular office policy is.)
I don't want to see strippers in scuba outfits and I certainly don't want the checker at the grocery store dressed in a G-string bikini.
So, should you be allowed to wear short skirts to work? Why should you? It seems the dress code is that they don't want you to. They seem to not want anyone wearing short skirts though, so you aren't being discriminated against. However, if you feel the need to wear short skirts, you are free to find another job. That's the freedom. It's not to wear whatever you want, because there are somethings that are inappropriate. However, you are free to choose what to wear and where to work. Your bosses are free to fire you, too.
Companies have to draw a line somewhere. I mean, they allow skirts. Then someone decides that mid-thigh is a good idea. It raises some eyebrows, but hey, it's a skirt and the dress code says skirts are okay. Then, they get someone who wears a micro mini skirt, and people don't even have to drop pencils anymore to see what kind of undies she wearing (or not.) So, they decided that to put out a dress code that specifically states how long the skirt has to be. It's their business and they get to decide what the employees are allowed to wear. After all, they are paying you and what you look like, and how you present yourself to the client, affects their reputation and bank account.
So, yeah, you should be allowed to wear what you want, but they should be allowed to hire and fire who they want.
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
I kept thinking of Turin as Jeff, too, and couldn't figure out why everyone was so worried aobut Rakeesh being gone, when (i thought) he had been posting.
Jeff's fine, he's busy, and doesn't have a working computer. He did give me permission to give his phone number to anyone who wanted it. If you ever call his house, make sure to ask for Jeff JUNIOR, or you'll get his dad, who has no idea who you are.
I have to compliment you guys on the strangest threadreading experience ever.
I'll comment on the dress/shoe thing, too, so as to not derail the thread again.
I like wearing dresses that show off my figure, but I'm not fond ones that show a lot of cleavage. I'm totally fine with ones that show silly things like shoulders and arms. My high school had a rule aobut no bare shoulders, which I thought was about the dumbest one ever. What's so sexy about shoulders? I don't like short skirts much... anything higher than about mid thigh makes me nervous. I have to say knee length skirts are my favorites, though i usually can't find any i really love. They're back in style now, so i might be able to.
My style is really a little random, a mix of boyish, boxy, comfortable stuff, and girly, frilly, flowy stuff. I usually even play up this difference by pairing a girly shirt wiht a pair of loose pants with lots of pockets. Or i wear clunky shoes wiht a really feminine outfit.
I hate women's shoes. With a passion. I have big feet(size 11), and it's almost impossible to find comfortable shoes that don't make me look like a clodhopper. So i buy guys shoes most of the time. but dress shoes are hard. the style lately tends towards platforms, which make my feet look even bigger.also, even the size 11 shoes are too narrow.
Ni!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:But no mens' dress code ever seems to specify things like skirt length that speak to sexuality content.
Typically, a men's professional dress code specifies that men must wear slacks, which is why I say they already are more modest. Certainly a larger percentage of our bodies was covered up at my former employer.
I wonder what would have happened if I had worn a kilt? Would it have been considered completely inappropriate, or would I have had to adhere to length requirements? Given that I was a middle school teacher at the time, though, it probably wouldn't have flown at all.
I do know that when I was first gaining weight, I was taken aside and told that my clothes were too tight.
Túrin, I don't know what to say. You still see conspiracies where I do not. Your judgment of me is already made, and frankly I'm not interested in trying to change it, but it means that it will color everything you read by me to the point where you will see an insult in everything I say, so you will not believe me when I say this: This is a forum for discussion. Not everybody will see things as you do. Many people in this thread have come to your defense. If you see persecution every time two or three people disagree with you about what is offensive, then maybe you wouldn't be happy in any online forum. Of course, you'll just see this as me saying "Don't let the door hit you . . . " (Which is sad, because then you clearly have not in your years here read any of my posts, because that's not in my character.) Maybe somebody who has not already offended you will concur with what I'm saying. I can only hope, though, that you won't immediately categorize it as further persecution. And see, that's the thing. If you see it as persecution every time one person speaks in disagreement with you, nobody can ever get pas that barrier--you have a ready reason to reject every message you don't like!
Kayla, I don't believe I ever referred to him as a newbie. I was careful not to. He implied that he was one, when he said we weren't being welcoming enough.
Do your research! (j/k )
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Well I have a side question that I would have asked sooner in this thread, but didn't because of other interesting topics contained herein.
What do you guys think of the terms "lady companion" or "lady friend"? I know people can mean them with the utmost deference, but both terms rub me the wrong way. Maybe I have heard too many dirty old men types say "lady friend" with a cackle, implying someone is less than a lady to begin with. But, it bugs me and I can't figure out why.
Am I the only one?
AJ
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I've always found the term "lady friend" to be kind of tasteless, and I cringe a bit when I hear it. I associate it with old men in cheap, ill fitting suits, who smell faintly of alcohol and stale tobacco. No idea why I have such a specific association for that one.
[ September 24, 2003, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Nope, you're not. I have very negative associations with both of those terms. But I was assuming this was a cultural difference and trying to ignore it.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Why, did someone use either of those terms? I must have skimmed over it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have never heard the phrase "lady friend" used outside of Sherlock Holmes books and the musical Showboat. Where did you hear it?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Now see, I hear "lady friend" now and then, but I've never heard "lady companion".
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I knew a girl in college who refused to say boyfriend or girlfriend.
She simply said: friendboy and friendgirl.
The best pair of fitting and comfortable hiking boots I can ever find are always in the boys section. They are the only ones that fit my fat, little duck feet. I highly recommend shopping for shoes in the boys section, ladies. Not only do they seem to fit better, they last longer and usually don't cost as much.
Don't know what y'all would do for pumps in that case tho' -
And I think the clothes on a man definitely matter - for example, it's far more appealing to see a man in leather chaps and leather jacket with a beautiful head of hair, than see a man in raggedy jeans, showing his crack at the back end and his beer gut under his skanky t-shirt up front.
So there!
Posted by Vána (Member # 3262) on :
I figured it was intended to be a politely neutral term - perhaps noting a non-romantic relationship, but still wanting to specify that he was talking about a woman?
I'm not really sure - I think I find it awkward, more than anything. I'd have said "my girlfriend" if it was a romantic relationship or "the woman/lady I'll be going to the theatre with," or maybe just said "my friend" and let the fact we were talking about dresses be enough to specify that she is a woman.
But, like dkw said, perhaps a cultural difference of sorts. I've nearly gotten used to hearing and reading phrasings that I find a little odd. That's what happens when you have friends all over the world!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
So, just chaps and the jacket then? Nothing else? ::taking notes::.
How about a bullwhip as an accessory?
Won't my wife be surprised when she comes home from class tonight!
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
First paragraph of first post on this thread from Turin, Italics mine.
quote:My lady companion and I are attending the theatre next week, and since it's opening night, I planned on wearing my kilt. My lady companion does not have an evening dress.
The older Pinkerton security guard here who is semi-retired and a bit loony and has hair growing out of his ears also definitely uses the term "lady friend" though when he is mad at her she is the "old bat". I've wondered about her looniness too.
AJ
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
That's strange--I completely glossed over that. Now that you draw my attention to it I remember seeing it and finding it strange, but my mind dismissed it so thoroughly that I thought that I'd never seen the term used.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
He's wearing a kilt - that's fine, but it isn't standard. I just assumed he was adopting the off-beat language as well as the outfit. I didn't think he meant the term seriously any more than we were meant to take the kilt seriously.
Wait - were we?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I thought it seemed like he was taking his kilt pretty seriously. But I have no idea what to take seriously anymore!
Incidentally I have a friend from Scotland who got married in Scotland, in full clan regalia, her husband was American but full Scottish.
My favorite wedding picture was the groomsmen in kilts lined up in the church bathroom facing the urinals. Nothing indecent is exposed other than some hairy legs but it just makes you pause and think!
AJ
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
You got it, Noemon - that's it, nothing else. NO accessories - at least not the ones you proposed. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The issue of modesty is a really confusing thing for me because it is such a culturally relative thing. What is consider "modest" by conservative christians, is not the same as what is considered "modest" by Muslims or orthodox jews. Among certain buddhists, partial nudity is not immodest, but wearing expensive clothing is. In most of Europe, wearing the amount of make-up common on the BYU campus is considered so immodest that only prostitutes do it.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
OMG!!!! That's great - BYU and make-up - Posted by Pixie (Member # 4043) on :
I've made it a strict policy of mine to simply never wear skirts shorter than just above the knee. This way when they ride up when I sit down (come on, we all know this happens) I'm follwing the previously mentioned no-higher-than-mid-thigh rule and I'm not stuck in the nasty predicament of wondering if it looks like I'm actually wearing anything. My only real gripe with dress codes is the whole no strapless, no tank tops thing. When I'm not wearing long or 3/4 sleeves I live in tank tops and spagetti straps. Not because I'm trying to send messages, but because they're comfortable and just downright nice to wear. I think my preference for either really long or nonexistent sleeves comes from those five years of dance uniforms and costumes. Which sort of leads me to a question of my own... Edit to wonder why the enter key suddenly means submit post... Anyway, though.... Just what is so terrible about halter tops? All they show is back and forgive me if I'm being silly but what on earth is bad or immoral about that?
[ September 24, 2003, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Pixie ]
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
Pixie, if you had my post in mind when you asked about halter tops, I personally have no problem with halter tops. On other people . They just don't generally look good on me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Leaving aside the issue of backs and shoulders for the moment, I am concerned that Pixie used the words "bad" and "immoral."
I certainly do not think that wearing clothes that I would not wear makes one either of those things. If I gave that impression, I do sincerely apologize.
[ September 24, 2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Regarding comfortable shoes, you should try Rockports. They make really nice shoes for men; however, I don't know if they make dress shoes for women. Worth a peek at their website, though.
Regarding "ladyfriend", the consensus among my etiquette books is to avoid using that term and simply introduce your gal by name:
"Bob, I'd like you to meet Cindy Strange. Cindy, this is Bob Weird."
In other words, avoid the title altogether when making introductions.
Jeff
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I take it you wouldn't approve of:
"Yo, this here's my main squeeze" ???
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Oh, I'd use that, but the etiquette books I own wouldn't advise it.
Jeff
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
You just need different books - any self-respecting Harley shop could provide you with one or two up-to-date guides. Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
"Self-respecting Harley shop"? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
Jeff
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
For shame!
Everyone has their own code of conduct!
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
To answer the question about string bikinis etc, my personal belief is that everyone should wear what they feel comfortable wearing, and the essence of class is not to notice things that don't matter. Like if someone arrives at my formal dinner dressed in a frogman suit, then ideally everyone would smile and greet them normally and not notice, other than. "Would you like me to take your mask?"
However, I can totally understand being unable to resist lines like, "Everyone's in the living room, just dive on in, I'll be there shortly".
[ September 24, 2003, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
One Friday my math professor wore Micky Mouse ears to class and said nothing about them, except that halfway through the class he stopped and gave a totally uncharacteristic rant about how kids today don't have any respect for professors and that students nowadays thought nothing at all of pointing and laughing at professors in the halls.
When the bell rang someone said, "See you next week!" in a Bobby voice, then someone else said, "Why? Because we like you." Ah, fun times! I miss college. Posted by Pixie (Member # 4043) on :
Rivka: Just put quotation marks around those words ("bad" and "immoral"). I meant to but I shrugged it off thinking that it was understood. My sincere apologies.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Pixie, I was only worried that I had unintentionally offended YOU (or others). Just ignore little ol' paranoid me. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: "Bob, I'd like you to meet Cindy Strange. Cindy, this is Bob Weird."
In other words, avoid the title altogether when making introductions
I agree with this.
I, personally, like the term 'lady friend' much more than 'girlfriend'. The connotation of the former is more elegant and denotes a relationship between a mature man and woman. 'Girlfriend', to me, sounds somewhat highschoolish and sophomoric.
This is not to say that I would use the term 'lady friend' in spoken conversation. In spoken conversation, it would be too formal. This brings up the question, then, of what term I would use in spoken conversation. I honestly don't know. I suppose I would just grit my teeth and use 'girlfriend' when speaking about my girl to other people the first time I was trying to convey to them our relationship, but probably not in her presence so not to offend.
*scratches head* Dating becomes really confusing after 30. I guess my best advice is to get married by the time you're 25 and avoid the whole issue all together.
By the way, I'm not sure it's very thoughtful to criticize someone you don't know very well for how they call someone they care about. Tůrin hasn't really been posting on here all that long, and I would guess that criticizing him for how he chooses to refer to his girlfriend might be a bit much before he knows anyone very well on this forum.
I understand no one meant it in a mean way, but I could definitely see how someone might be irritated at the criticism if they didn't know it was coming from friends.
[ September 25, 2003, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't think the were being critical . . . I think the conversation just meandered to that topic. I too saw how Túrin might misinterpret it as criticism, and as everybody ganging up on him for whatever reason.
*helpless shrug*
I don't know that we can walk on eggshells all the time. I'm going to post what I'm going to post and just cross my fingers that people won't take it as an attack on the occasions when I don't intend it that way.
I personally see nothing wrong with "lady friend." Like you, I think it's preferable to "girlfriend." Plus, it also covers the situation where maybe there isn't really a romantic attachment yet, but one is open to the possibility that there might be one in the near future.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Icarus, are you serious or are you joking? Without the "(j/k ) I feel so confused!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
The way I figured it was that Turin had already complained that we were ganging up on him and said he was leaving after a pretty mild Hatrack experience.
This was a question I had meant to post anyway and I would have been interested in Turin's opinion and how he felt about using the term. I think he meant it in a very respectful way, but I can't be sure. I didn't feel that the question would have normally been inappropriate for Hatrack considering there is almost never a requirementto actually stay on topic in a thread and didn't feel like walking on eggshells about it as Icarus had said.
AJ
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I know, Banna. What's more, I'm the last person in the world who needs to be making any kind of criticism about how anyone else posts. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Well, I take offense to that, Storm.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Now you have cwushed my wittle spiwit, you howwible person. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
How offensive Storm! Think of how the people with speech impediments must be feeling right now! That's vewy, vewy WUDE!
Just ask Ralphie.
Oh, just for the record, I've decided that any use of the indefinite article is personally offensive. I will expect everyone to modify their writing style so as not to offend me.
You've been warned.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
In terms of girlfriend or boyfriend terms, I don't like them at all.
I prefer sweetheart. Not too gushy, a little old-fashioned, gender-interchangeable (both can use it), and indicative of, I think, respect. I like it.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
I prefer "Get back in the kitchen and make me a pot-pie!" to signal who has my loyalty and love.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
<Goes sheepishly back to kitchen to make a pot-pie.>
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I have so many older patients who use the term "ladyfriend" that I am sort of neutral about the word now. I didn't like it much at first.
I used to have a pet bird, a lovebird. Once or twice I commented to other people that I had a lovebird and they thought I meant a boyfriend!
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
<hopes Ralphie and my Steve never ever meet, because I'm a horrible pot pie cook>
AJ
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
You guys! How could you be so insensitive? Your posts have been positively peppered with indefinite articles ever since I said that I found them offensive. You're doing this on purpose, aren't you?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Except for Ralphie. She's the only one of us who is respectful. Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Damn straight.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I like the term 'sweetheart', too, Kat. I guess 'my bitch/ho' are right out, eh?
I guess if I were to think of a term that I've heard that people do use that I find a little distasteful it's 'my old lady/man'. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*pat pat* I'd never use those other terms; they're Ralphie's pet names for you.
Agreed about the other terms - those suck. They are also confusing "my old lady" is an amor, but "my old man" is a father. That's.... creepy.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Heh. It's funny because it's true. Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Here's a song for all you sweethearts *insert lots of nasal twang for the correct effect:
"Put another log on the fire Cook me up some bacon and some beans Go out to the car and lift it up and change the tire - Wash my socks and sew my old blue jeans. C'mon baby, you can fill my pipe and then go fetch my slippers, and boil me up another pot of tea and put another log on the fire, babe and come and tell me why your leaving me."
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Ain't I always nice to your kid sister? Don't I take her driving Friday night? So sit here at my feet 'cause I like it when you're sweet, and you know that it ain't feminine to fight!
[ September 26, 2003, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I’ve heard that little tune once too often And I’m tired of work so he can get ahead As I calmly laid aside my kitchen apron I sat by him and smiling sweetly said . . .
For ten long years I’ve kept the fire going But recently I’ve been thinking twice About beans and jeans and cars and pipes and bacon And names you call me that ain’t very nice.
I’ve always kind of liked your younger brother We put the fire in each other’s eyes And he always treats me like I’m something pretty darned special And his moving parts aren’t always cold as ice.
We’re moving to Sheboygan come next Friday I’m telling you, I thought you’d want to know. So don’t bother with that log on the fire, babe, The flame went out a long, long time ago.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I feel it necessary to inform Hatrack that I am having a panic attack. We have to attend a wedding in Ohio tomorrow and I have nothing to wear! I suddenly thought about it late last night and realized I have exactly this evening to shop for a dress.
The last wedding I went to was in the spring in Houston, and so the attire was entirely different because of weather constraints.
I have some more formal clothes, but they are generally my dog show attire, which aren't quite wedding caliber. Dog shows require an interesting style of dressing that you don't reallly see anywhere else, such as semi-formal but with lots of pockets and tennis shoes so that you can run to gait the dogs and have pockets for storing treats. Only a few like Westminster are you actually dressed up in evening dress. Guys have it easier there to, because a jacket and slacks are perfectly acceptable, while for women it is a bit more difficult.
AJ
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Don't panic. Go to a nice clothing store, find a saleswoman who you think is well-dressed (and preferably built like you) and ask her for some recommendations. You may have to go to a couple of stores.
If you've got the cash, Neiman Marcus, Saks 5th Avenue, and Brooks Brothers will all have good possibilities for you.
Jeff
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Having the cash is, of course, a bit of an issue. Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Get back in your box, newbie!
::Hasn't been posting because has been firmly in her box::
Can I come out now?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
No.
*thwap*
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
::feeds newbie through hole in box::
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Icarus! Of course you would know the rest of that song!
Phew
*beginning to think I had horribly offended the entire Hatrack crowd*
AJ - I was going to tell you to go to the nice thread on clothing when I remembered that's where I was! Good luck - I don't suppose they're having a county western style wedding and new blue jeans and your favorite hat and boots would do . . .
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Hey! You got sauce all over me! Be careful with that feeding....
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
That wasn't sauce.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
you're lucky you got fed - don't complain
*scowls*
{edited for mack - ewwwwwww}
[ September 28, 2003, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: Shan ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
:: retreats to far corner of box, far away from feeding hole::
I second that eeeew!
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Get back in your box, newbie!
Wow, I started a hatrack meme! I'm so proud.
Anyway, this thread was very interesting to read all at once. I'm not gonna state my opinions because this topic has pretty much run its course, but it was definitly an interesting read.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
", that would be "joking on the square".![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
It's especially hard at prom time.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Like I actually know how to sew. ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)