current dress trends

[Drappa]

Although there is an immense amount of pressure to be ridiculously thin today, I don't think that body policing was absent or not as harsh back then. Shapewear was worn in order to conform to an ideal - different shapewear at different times. I have seen plenty of vintage ads trying to sell medication for slim women to put on weight because "no man wants a woman without curves" and similar ads for weightloss etc. Having very straight hair was unfashionable for most if not all of the Golden Era, so some people froed their hair rather than not conform. Women, and to a lesser extent men, have been subject to this pressure for centuries.

And the further problem is the assumption that all people are supposed to be very slender and well built, and if they aren't there's something intrinsically wrong with them. Thus, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, and all other such things which were, if not unheard of, then much, much rarer in the not-so-distant past. People certainly dieted, wore girdles, etc., but there wasn't the sneering fitter-than-thou pressure you get from some types of people today ("You're just lazy, you could be thin if you *wanted* to be") if you have any kind of a visible pudge.

One of the things you'll notice window-shopping your way thru catalogs from the Era is that different types of clothing were easily available for different body types. You didn't have to be a nineteen-year-old sylph with no hips and no breasts, or a teen-age-boy transvestite, to find something that made you look good, and looked good on you.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I didn't say there wasn't any of those things -- but they didn't carry the tint of moral outrage that they do now: if you aren't "fit and toned" nowadays it's often seen as some sort of moral failing, not simply that you just have other priorities or that you're genetically predisposed to a different shape than you're expected to have. Nobody *condemned* you for having a thick waistline or flabby arms. Words like "cankles" didn't exist. And teenage girls weren't wolfing laxatives in their rooms and hiding paper bags full of vomit under their beds.

The women's magazines of the era are instructive. Yes, you'll see the Ironized Yeast ads telling you you'd look better with a few more pounds on you, but you'll look long and hard for the sort of narcissistic body-obsessed articles you see nowadays: the idea was to adjust the clothes to fit your type, not to physically transform yourself into an unnatural body type to fit the clothes. Personally, I find the vintage view of such things to be far more healthy -- in all the history of the species, not a single woman has ever died from wearing a girdle.

 

[J.W.]

Ladies, living together with a woman who has fallen for the "slimmer is better"-ideal, I can only tell you that it is really getting on my nerves! Women should have some curves, including hips, yes. Seeing my partner calculating points, watching everything she eats, can't be good in the long run. Denying herself the pleasure of eating really lessens her quality of life. To me, she's perfect, but that doesn't seem to matter.

 

[Trixie]

I didn't say there wasn't any of those things -- but they didn't carry the tint of moral outrage that they do now: if you aren't "fit and toned" nowadays it's often seen as some sort of moral failing, not simply that you just have other priorities or that you're genetically predisposed to a different shape than you're expected to have. Nobody *condemned* you for having a thick waistline or flabby arms. Words like "cankles" didn't exist. And teenage girls weren't wolfing laxatives in their rooms and hiding paper bags full of vomit under their beds.

The women's magazines of the era are instructive. Yes, you'll see the Ironized Yeast ads telling you you'd look better with a few more pounds on you, but you'll look long and hard for the sort of narcissistic body-obsessed articles you see nowadays: the idea was to adjust the clothes to fit your type, not to physically transform yourself into an unnatural body type to fit the clothes. Personally, I find the vintage view of such things to be far more healthy -- in all the history of the species, not a single woman has ever died from wearing a girdle.

I agree with this SO much! And the clothing for the women who weren't slim, junior size, was not just a larger version of the slim, junior size clothing, it was clothing that was suited to a larger figure.

 

[ThesFlishThngs]

Not to mention the photos of women in magazines were real photos, with no more re-touching than what was available at the cut-and-paste desk. With today's extreme digital manipulation and morphing of women who are already beautiful into impossible shapes and proportions, how can the impressionable, inferior masses ever hope to measure up?

 

[Edward]

Yet another thing that's been turned on its head. How sad is it that back in the day if you wanted to be outrageous and dress in a flamboyant, over-the-top manner you had pay extra for the privilege but today wanting to look like a decent human being has now become the privilege?

Au contraire: this has not changed; it is simply that now it is we who favour tailored suits who are the flamboyant exception to the norm - and one day the pendulum will swing again.

I have to disagree though that low slung jeans are universally unattractive. When they first appeared they were certainly sexy on very slender people, but only in combination with a toned body. The problem is that most people who wear them don't have the body to go with it, and since there is no room for shapewear or illusion, the look becomes unattractive with fat hanging over the sides. That would be like most fashions though - I personally don't find the obese guys above attractive just because they wear higher cut trousers or suits.

I suppose it's a matter of personal aesthetics. I've never cared for the very low waist on jeans because irrespective of body type, to my eye it simply makes anyone look disproportionately long in the torso. [huh] In that sense, it's little different than the hip-hop jeans worn ten inches below waist approach.

And the further problem is the assumption that all people are supposed to be very slender and well built, and if they aren't there's something intrinsically wrong with them. Thus, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, and all other such things which were, if not unheard of, then much, much rarer in the not-so-distant past. People certainly dieted, wore girdles, etc., but there wasn't the sneering fitter-than-thou pressure you get from some types of people today ("You're just lazy, you could be thin if you *wanted* to be") if you have any kind of a visible pudge.

One of the things you'll notice window-shopping your way thru catalogs from the Era is that different types of clothing were easily available for different body types. You didn't have to be a nineteen-year-old sylph with no hips and no breasts, or a teen-age-boy transvestite, to find something that made you look good, and looked good on you.

I'm constantly reminded of Voltaire's song about how the industrial revolution triumphed "by taking choice away from you and me".

[video=youtube;EF1GOjFfH6s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF1GOjFfH6s[/video]

An extreme interpretation, yes, but not one without merit.

I didn't say there wasn't any of those things -- but they didn't carry the tint of moral outrage that they do now: if you aren't "fit and toned" nowadays it's often seen as some sort of moral failing, not simply that you just have other priorities or that you're genetically predisposed to a different shape than you're expected to have. Nobody *condemned* you for having a thick waistline or flabby arms. Words like "cankles" didn't exist. And teenage girls weren't wolfing laxatives in their rooms and hiding paper bags full of vomit under their beds.

The women's magazines of the era are instructive. Yes, you'll see the Ironized Yeast ads telling you you'd look better with a few more pounds on you, but you'll look long and hard for the sort of narcissistic body-obsessed articles you see nowadays: the idea was to adjust the clothes to fit your type, not to physically transform yourself into an unnatural body type to fit the clothes. Personally, I find the vintage view of such things to be far more healthy -- in all the history of the species, not a single woman has ever died from wearing a girdle.

It's the flip-flopping these days that makes it worse, it seems to me. "Look at all these famous far too skinny women women starving themselves to DEATH....... on the diet plan we recommended last week, remember, on the page opposite the one where we said all these same women were fat....."....

 

[Atticus Finch]

This is quite true. Some years ago I was looking through old familly photos and I saw my dad in some pretty loud '70s clothes: flared pants, bright gaudy shirts (like "Two wild and crazy guys"), etc. I found this odd because my dad is the ultimate "I don't give a damn about fashion, I'm going down to Kmart and buy 8 copies of the same pair of shorts or khakis when they have it on sale and I'm good for the year." So I asked my dad if in his younger days he was a bit of a '70s fashion hound. My said, "No I hated that stuff, but its all the inexpensive stories where selling so you had to buy it. Everyone dressed like that."

Heh heh...your dad might be disremembering some things he wants to repress.

In those days, one could still buy jeans, khakis, denim shirts, T-shirts, sweat shirts and the like that looked very much like they do today. Admittedly, much of the available dress clothing was a bit "wild and crazy". But even at the height of the disco craze, a person could still buy stuff that wasn't made of burnt orange or lime green double knit.

AF

 

[Noirblack]

Although there is an immense amount of pressure to be ridiculously thin today, I don't think that body policing was absent or not as harsh back then. Shapewear was worn in order to conform to an ideal - different shapewear at different times. I have seen plenty of vintage ads trying to sell medication for slim women to put on weight because "no man wants a woman without curves" and similar ads for weightloss etc. Having very straight hair was unfashionable for most if not all of the Golden Era, so some people froed their hair rather than not conform. Women, and to a lesser extent men, have been subject to this pressure for centuries.

From the Center for Disease Contol:

• Percent of adults age 20 years and over who are obese: 33.9% (2007-2008)
• Percent of adults age 20 years and over who are overweight (and not obese): 34.4% (2007-2008)

If you add those up that's 68.3% of US adults who are overweight or obese. Although there is pressure to be thin, and it often has too great of an impact on young women, the pressure seems to have no effect on the great majority of the population.

 

[LizzieMaine]

So why are mainstream fashions designed and intended and styled for unnaturally thin people?

Those figures, by the way, should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm 5 foot 6 and weigh 165 lbs, give or take a pastrami sandwich, and am thus considered "overweight" by modern standards, which I find laughable. Pass the pastrami.

"Hey fattie, lose some weight!"

 

[rene_writer]

"Not to mention the photos of women in magazines were real photos, with no more re-touching than what was available at the cut-and-paste desk."

H&M stepped it up last year and just pasted women's faces to mannequin's bodies which were photoshopped to have a "skin-like" look for their ads.

It's official. Nobody is good enough, not even in an enhanced form. Let's just use plastic dummies.

 

[ThesFlishThngs]

From the look of some of the women I've seen lately who've put themselves through extreme cosmetic surgeries, they're well on their way to becoming plastic dummies.

 

[Peregrine]

To me, she's perfect, but that doesn't seem to matter.

That's what I keep telling my lovely lady too, but it falls on deaf ears!

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I keep hoping it'll hit here. I wear Western Wear and get told I'm dressed up! Western Wear! Mad Men's been out for a few years and I know like 2 or 3 people here who have ever even heard of it.

i must say though, i think, i hope that men in their 30s and 40s dressing like teenagers has had its peak. with fashion blogs, show's like Mad Men and the interest of men's magazines in tailoring, the message at the moment seems to be that it's 'cool' to look a bit more dapper and put together. that will filter down eventually in some form or another.

I was making this mistake for years, but thanks to the FL, I fixed it. I insisted that I was a small waist size, but I had a beer belly hanging so far down you couldn't see my belt buckle. Not a flattering look. Now, I bought my pants a bit baggier and wear them a bit higher and it slims me (I'm working on dropping a few, too, much needed) Not everyone can do that high waist look, but I have a long torso and short legs, so I actually look more properly proportioned lol

I know a lot of heavy-set people around here that could try to dress more flattering to their build and it would make a world of difference.

The men with the big bellies just seem to buy their pants too small. They would definitely look better with a higher waist. As it is, their pants are low on the waist while the belly hangs over the belt. Add to that a shirt that is so tight that it's straining at the buttons. That look does nothing but make the belly more pronounced. It would be a much nicer silhouette if the pants were up covering the belly. Think of Alfred Hitchcock. As big as he was, he new how to dress himself. Sebastian Cabot also comes to mind as a large man who looked great in his clothes.

Clearly I'm picturing men who made the effort to dress well. If the big belly is filling up a wife beater and hanging down over the waist band of an old pair of jeans, the location of the waist band isn't what makes the ensemble look like crap.

I think the emphasis on being fit and toned is a bit ridiculous, too. Some people have the genes, some people have the time to go to the gym, and the money, some people don't. Frankly, I think that these really skinny women don't look good. They lose their female shape. I can't comment on guys because I'm not looking at their build in the way the women are, which is what matters. Frankly, male or female, I'd hate to be judged on whether or not I have a few extra pounds.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

Not to mention the photos of women in magazines were real photos, with no more re-touching than what was available at the cut-and-paste desk. With today's extreme digital manipulation and morphing of women who are already beautiful into impossible shapes and proportions, how can the impressionable, inferior masses ever hope to measure up?

I disagree. There was also photo retouching. Of course not as extreme but it was there. They just added some dark or light lines to the silhoutte with a brush or a pen. It worked because of the bad print quality. I saw some original Edward Steichen prints with that procedure...

 

[Miss Golightly]

I disagree. There was also photo retouching. Of course not as extreme but it was there. They just added some dark or light lines to the silhoutte with a brush or a pen. It worked because of the bad print quality. I saw some original Edward Steichen prints with that procedure...

Although a later example, here is some retouching of the pretty much perfect Audrey Hepburn:

I also remember seeing a studio portrait of Claudette Colbert who had a very short neck (Noel Coward famously said "If she had a neck, I'd wring it!") and it showed how the photographer had cut a piece away from her shoulder to lengthen her neck and rectify the problem.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Certainly studio lighting and the opaquing brush were used to make models look as attractive as possible -- and Hollywood glamour stills are a whole different subject. But modern retouching goes far beyond that in promoting unrealistic body image. The mannequin thing posted earlier is a grotesque example of this.

More to the point, though, I think, is that the models in the Era were themselves realistic women. They were generally taller than the average woman -- around 5' 8" when the average woman was closer to 5' 4". But they weren't expected to be free of any body fat, or any other aspects of a usual female body type. They had average sized breasts and average size hips, because the clothing they were displaying was intended to be purchased and worn by women of average build -- not stylized, exaggerated fantasy figures out of some misogynistic designer's imagination. Most women reading the fashion magazines at home could look at the photos and could see a reflection of themselves -- or at least an image that was within attainable reach of most healthy women without a radical self-transformation. If you look at pre-war issues of Vogue or Harpers Bazaar, you'll see very little fantasization or stylization of the models in the photos -- that was saved for line sketches that were understood to be idealized, not realistic. And in the Ladies Home Journal, Woman's Home Companion, and McCalls -- which had far more influence on the everyday look of ordinary women -- you'll see none at all.

 

[Flicka]

I was shocked to read Joan Crawford's stats and realise that until a year ago, I fit her stats down to the last inch and pound. I mean, she was a knock-out and my ex used to refer to me as 'chubs'. And I believed him!

(for the record, I gained a bunch in the last year)

 

[Undertow]

Stand back and think about this business model for a moment:

ACME Clothing Company makes stylish new clothes for the modern consumer.

* Vanity sizes are used so as to differentiate ACME's line from other brands, but the sizing has no actual bearing on fit; in fact, the clothing fits poorly in all the wrong ways, and items are modeled on emaciated human skeletons in multimillion dollar photo shoots.

* Prices should be around $5-10 per unit after shipping, taxes, labor, etc. but ACME decides to charge an arbitrary $75 per unit in most regions, or a premium $140 in upscale locations.

* The possible materials available to the manufacturer vary little in price due to wholesale purchase rates, but the durability varies greatly. The manufacturer chooses to use blends with things like Lycra, silk, Dacron and cotton for an article that barely holds up after three nights out, and which must be dry cleaned. The articles are often ruined and thrown away.

Could you imagine ACME making any money as a company? I mean realistically? But of course you can, and we watch clothing companies fleece us all day long with these kinds of practices. Until consumers begin to educate themselves and demand fashionable, durable, affordable clothing, we'll contiue getting fleeced.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I was shocked to read Joan Crawford's stats and realise that until a year ago, I fit her stats down to the last inch and pound. I mean, she was a knock-out and my ex used to refer to me as 'chubs'. And I believed him!

(for the record, I gained a bunch in the last year)

As recently as 1960, the average fashion model weighed 130 pounds. The obsession with Thinner Uber Alles didn't begin until the late sixties, and nowadays if you weigh 130 pounds or, god forbid, even more than that, you're a "plus size" and the fashion industry either shoves you off into a ghetto or wants nothing to do with you at all. Well, the feeling's mutual.

 

[Noirblack]

So why are mainstream fashions designed and intended and styled for unnaturally thin people?

Those figures, by the way, should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm 5 foot 6 and weigh 165 lbs, give or take a pastrami sandwich, and am thus considered "overweight" by modern standards, which I find laughable. Pass the pastrami.

First, whether or not mainstream fashions are styled for unnaturally thin people has no bearing on how many people are overweight or obese. If you don't believe the numbers just go out and look at people. Tell me the majority aren't too fat.

Second, mainstream fashions are not aimed at unnaturally thin people. If I go out to pick up a pair of jeans I see sizes as high as 44 inch waists available for men in the store. I just took a look at the LLBean website for fun and you can actually get up to size 46 in their Double L jeans. This size isn't even designated by LLBean as a "portly" size or whatever other kind of euphamisms are commonly used. You can get a linen blazer from them with a 52 inch chest. In fact the smallest you could get for this blazer is a 38 inch chest. Elsewhere on their site, their size guide for polo style shirts show a 38 to 40 inch chest is a medium shirt. A small is a 34 to 36 inch chest. So this means they aren't even making the linen blazer in small anymore.

On the Brooks Brothers website, you can get suits up to a 56 inch chest. And dress shirts with a 20 inch neck! The good news is that the big guys can get decent looking clothing.

I stand by my point - there are lots of overweight and obese people, and lots of decent clothing available for them too.