posted
::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?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 1676 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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!
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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}
posted
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. )
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
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. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.]
posted
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.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 353 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
Banna, I'm not sure there actually WAS a "dispute." Did anybody here disagree about anything?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
It's especially hard at prom time.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Like I actually know how to sew. ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
