Shockingly horrid attire

[Absinthe_1900]

PSA was fun for boys and men. Remember the smile painted on the plane's nose? The psychedelic Hawaiian upholstery? The miniskirts and high zip boots?

.

Southwest used to have the flight attendants wear hotpants.

http://www.time.com/time/2003/flight/fashion4.html

 

[Senator Jack]

Now how can anyone not like the 60s?

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[Lady Day]

The saddest thing in the world is to see a beautiful girl in clothing that does not become her. And I am no prude. I like to see sexy in women. But the clothes now are not made for most of the "American" figures. The clothes are made for women with no hips, no butt, and no chest, but with a flat belly and skinny legs. MOST women these days cannot pull off the current fashions after puberty, or before surgery. I miss the days of an hourglass figure in dress and heels.

-D

lol
Thats why I make most of my clothes. I have hips for days

LD

 

[Lady Day]

Sorry, don't like men in flip-flops or sandals, escpecially in an enclosed area like an airplane or theatre. Why?

MEN'S FEET USUALLY STINK!
​

Case closed.

Regards,
Senator Jack

In my reply, and agreement to your anti flip-flop statement.

If the shoe does not lace, fold over, or tie to my foot, and if it stays on the ground while my sole is in the air as Im taking a step, its wrong.

LD

 

[Close Shave]

Horses for courses...

Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen

Surely the hardest part is a journey that departs in one climate and arrives in another? For example, in December I depart Wellington NZ (it will be summer and around 25 Centigrade) to arrive in Osaka, Japan (winter, around 5C!)

So if I depart in a natty Aloha shirt, chinos, beef roll loafers, Solaro jacket and Panama, I need a complete change of clothes (and a space to change) en route.

Easy on the train or when motoring (one sends one's man on ahead with the luggage) but on today's planes?

Shocking! First Class is the only answer, of course - but upgrades on international flights are rather rarer than hen's teeth!

Pip pip!

 

[LaMedicine]

Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen

Surely the hardest part is a journey that departs in one climate and arrives in another? For example, in December I depart Wellington NZ (it will be summer and around 25 Centigrade) to arrive in Osaka, Japan (winter, around 5C!)

So if I depart in a natty Aloha shirt, chinos, beef roll loafers, Solaro jacket and Panama, I need a complete change of clothes (and a space to change) en route.

Easy on the train or when motoring (one sends one's man on ahead with the luggage) but on today's planes?

Shocking! First Class is the only answer, of course - but upgrades on international flights are rather rarer than hen's teeth!

Pip pip!

lol lol lol lol lol
Right back to you when traveling from hot and muggy summer Tokyo at 30C and over (90F and over) , to winter NZ which I hear is snowing in parts...so what's the temp there right now?

 

[TwoToneDeuce]

lol
Thats why I make most of my clothes. I have hips for days

LD

And there is certainly nothing wrong with that! I am saddened when current fashion thinks women like Ms. Monroe, or Ms. Dietrich are fat and only give options that make figures like theirs look bad. I have advised a few of my female friends that a tight shirt and tight hip hugger jeans with exposed mid-rift causes rolls and muffin tops, and we are not at the bakery.

Then Trogdor smoked the Kerrek, and all was laid to burnination.

Trogdor!! The burninator. Scroll buttons, scroll buttons, smooth like the butter on the muffin.

-D

 

[LizzieMaine]

The Aesthetics of Bad Fashion?

I had this thread in mind yesterday when I was wandering around our local summer festival, and had a chance to see a lot of the things we've been commenting about up close and in person. But I tried an experiment -- I wanted to figure out if my gripes about modern styles are founded more in my own particular tastes and quirks or if there was some more substantial reason why those fashions bug me so.

So what I tried to do was to look at the outfits around me from a totally neutral point of view -- putting aside my own attitudes about taste and propriety as much as possible. And after doing this for a while, there were a couple issues that really stood out.

One of the most common looks I saw was low-slung baggy shorts topped with a long T-shirt. What bugged me about this was that *invariably* it makes the wearer's torso look extremely long, and his legs ridiculously short and stumpy. There's no sense of a natural waistline at all, so the body loses all sense of definition, and what you end up with is less an attractive human figure than a shambling amorphous blob.

The female variation of that look isn't much better -- the short belly shirt coupled with ultra-low-rise shorts or jeans. Once again, the torso is elongated and the legs are shortened, and the figure is thrown all out of proportion. I saw endless variations on that look, on women of all different shapes and sizes, and it looked proportionate on none of them.

So I guess my question is, am I missing something? From a design perspective, what is it that these looks are trying to accomplish? Is there some practical reason I'm not understanding? Or have aesthetics really changed so much that I'm just not grasping the overwhelming appeal of a poorly-proportioned elongated torso and stumpy legs?

 

[Feraud]

So I guess my question is, am I missing something? From a design perspective, what is it that these looks are trying to accomplish? Is there some practical reason I'm not understanding? Or have aesthetics really changed so much that I'm just not grasping the overwhelming appeal of a poorly-proportioned elongated torso and stumpy legs?

There is no real practicality, intention, or appeal (subjective of course) to fashion. It is much like sleepwalking. People do it and not realize it! That is why most people look back on their old photographs and exclaim, "I cannot believe I wore that!"
I do not think anyone should be forced to dress a certain way but I miss the lack of any thought that goes into fashion today. I certainly exclude young people for lack of experience but older folks should know better!

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

So I guess my question is, am I missing something? From a design perspective, what is it that these looks are trying to accomplish? Is there some practical reason I'm not understanding? Or have aesthetics really changed so much that I'm just not grasping the overwhelming appeal of a poorly-proportioned elongated torso and stumpy legs?

Very good thought. It used to be that long legs were the most attractive part of the woman's form. Now all the new styles are turning them into stumps. But, I wonder if navels and chests are the new legs. Guys like seeing girls tummies, although not all tummies should be seen. And those tight tops really show off a girl's "assets". I think it's a very unflattering style, that has been "in" for far too long.
However, maybe long legs are coming back in vogue. In the past week, I have seen numerous "young ladies" wearing incredibly short, the shortest I've ever seen, jean skirts. They wear them low on the hips, and they barely cover their unmentionables. I think the overall length might be 5 inches of fabric. They all paired these bits of fabric with very, very high spiked heels and some sort of very tight tank top. In there defense, none were revealing their tummies. They were elongating their legs verses trying to shorten them. But, I think that I saw enough of their skin. I saw one of these young ladies this morning, standing on the corner, waiting for the train. Now, like Lizzie, I'm trying to be open minded about these styles, but one can imagine what I thought when I saw her standing on the corner.. Lets just say I thought the neighborhood was going downhill.
My mom always told me that I should leave a little to the imagination. I guess these girls want people to have a different image of them, than what my mom had in mind. If I wanted to see that much skin, I would have gone to the beach. But, I will try to keep an open mind. At least she was wearing a skirt!

 

[Paisley]

Lizzie, I agree completely with you about proportions. Humans seem to be hardwired to appreciate symmetry and certain proportions (such as the 3x5 rectangle or an oval face).

On women's fashions, I'd add that the current style of low-slung pants gives the illusion of having no waist. Camisoles lack the support to give flat-chested ladies a bust. Clam diggers (or capri pants) give the illusion of stumpy legs, especially on heavier women.

Fashions of the golden era, especially of the 40s, though, were proportioned to create a feminine figure, even if a woman didn't have one. Padded shoulders made the waistline look smaller. Same for bolero jackets. Peplums did the same and added a little hippiness--not a bad thing back then.

 

[LaMedicine]

So I guess my question is, am I missing something? From a design perspective, what is it that these looks are trying to accomplish? Is there some practical reason I'm not understanding? Or have aesthetics really changed so much that I'm just not grasping the overwhelming appeal of a poorly-proportioned elongated torso and stumpy legs?

This reminds me of what someone wrote in a thread elsewhere, that her teenage niece did not know where her waist line was!! I wonder how many of those sporting waist-less fashion actually know where their waist line is, or do they think their hip line is the waist line?
Though in the world of medicine, when we speak of "waist measurement" it means the line that goes through your navel and not the narrowest part of your torso.

 

[Rosie]

This reminds me of what someone wrote in a thread elsewhere, that her teenage niece did not know where her waist line was!! I wonder how many of those sporting waist-less fashion actually know where their waist line is, or do they think their hip line is the waist line?
Though in the world of medicine, when we speak of "waist measurement" it means the line that goes through your navel and not the narrowest part of your torso.

I'll be the first to admit that when I was a younger teenager, I sincerely thought my waist was what I would now consider to be my upper hip. [huh] I just didn't know. As a side note, kind of related, I was speaking with a friend on mine, I woman in her early thirties and she didn't know the functions of her body as a female, this incident pops out to me because if she didn't know what her body should and shouldn't do at the age of 30-something, then it wouldn't shock me if she didn't know exactly where her waist was.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

The philosophy in those days:


-- Frequent flying sucked.

-- Most frequent flyers were businessmen.

-- For businessmen, frequent flying sucked less when young, attractive stewardesses in hot pants served them complimentary scotches with a smile.


Who could argue with that? lol


.

 

[TwoToneDeuce]

Lizzie, I agree completely with you about proportions. Humans seem to be hardwired to appreciate symmetry and certain proportions (such as the 3x5 rectangle or an oval face).

On women's fashions, I'd add that the current style of low-slung pants gives the illusion of having no waist. Camisoles lack the support to give flat-chested ladies a bust. Clam diggers (or capri pants) give the illusion of stumpy legs, especially on heavier women.

Fashions of the golden era, especially of the 40s, though, were proportioned to create a feminine figure, even if a woman didn't have one. Padded shoulders made the waistline look smaller. Same for bolero jackets. Peplums did the same and added a little hippiness--not a bad thing back then.

I think the difference between then and now is that "fashion" was based on flattery of the best assets of a woman and detracting from the "trouble spots" That requires some material to work with and then they had the material to do just that. With today's fashion you can only do so much with so little material, especially if you are trying to cover so much extra flesh.

-D

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I think the difference between then and now is that "fashion" was based on flattery of the best assets of a woman and detracting from the "trouble spots".

Deuce, there's a big hole in your conjecture: the 1920s. Few women had bodies that suited the straight, flat lines of that decade's dresses and suits. Ever seen an authentic '20s "flapper dress" on a woman with hips and a bust? Looks awful.

.

 

[Paisley]

Even if fashion didn't suit everybody, I think women used to try harder to wear clothes that accentuated their best features and camoflaged their worst ones. Given that most Americans are overweight, could anything look worse on most women than low-slung pants, sleeveless shirts, clam diggers, and bare midriffs? Even if you aren't overweight, those clothes can make you look like you are. I have the figure of a 12-year-old gymnast, but I find the style too ugly to wear.

There are some threads in the Powder Room on clothing to suit one's coloring. Looking around the city, it seems that most women don't even consider whether the color of their clothes suits them.

Also, matrons didn't ape 20-year-olds as they do now. The flapper dresses probably looked fine on most young girls of the late 1920s. I say that even if you have the figure for it, teenagers' clothes don't become you if you're old enough to have teenagers.

It's ironic that people in general now want big, beautiful houses with glorious landscaping and interior decor, drop-dead gorgeous singers and actors (what does beauty have to do with singing or acting?), etc., but as to their own appearance, they don't seem to care.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Also, matrons didn't ape 20-year-olds as they do now.

In the '20s, the matrons with some extra spending money (and not too much "old time religion") certainly did ape their daughters' dressing habits, to awful effect. This was noted -- and criticized -- again and again by writers of the time.

.

 

[Absinthe_1900]

I had this thread in mind yesterday when I was wandering around our local summer festival, and had a chance to see a lot of the things we've been commenting about up close and in person. But I tried an experiment -- I wanted to figure out if my gripes about modern styles are founded more in my own particular tastes and quirks or if there was some more substantial reason why those fashions bug me so.

So what I tried to do was to look at the outfits around me from a totally neutral point of view -- putting aside my own attitudes about taste and propriety as much as possible. And after doing this for a while, there were a couple issues that really stood out.

One of the most common looks I saw was low-slung baggy shorts topped with a long T-shirt. What bugged me about this was that *invariably* it makes the wearer's torso look extremely long, and his legs ridiculously short and stumpy.

So I guess my question is, am I missing something? From a design perspective, what is it that these looks are trying to accomplish? Is there some practical reason I'm not understanding? Or have aesthetics really changed so much that I'm just not grasping the overwhelming appeal of a poorly-proportioned elongated torso and stumpy legs?

Some people were on the cutting edge before others.lol

 

[TwoToneDeuce]

Deuce, there's a big hole in your conjecture: the 1920s. Few women had bodies that suited the straight, flat lines of that decade's dresses and suits. Ever seen an authentic '20s "flapper dress" on a woman with hips and a bust? Looks awful.

.

I didn't say that everyone in the past always dressed to suit their figures. I implied that women took more account of their own figure and that "fashion" was more in line with the reality of the current woman's figure. The flapper dress, though iconic for the time, was normally reserved for those in their early 20's. And during the "flapper period" the women were smaller and more of them were able to pull off that look. And by the 30's fashion sanity had returned. Today however, womens clothes are made, it seems, with no regard to the real figures in this country.

Regards,

-D