About a year ago, we had a discussion about Jennifer Love Hewitt and her clothing. I guess us mid-westerners, and the easterners of the U.S. simply hadn't yet realized that the new fashion was baby doll pajamas from the 50's and 60's. I can't believe that young women today are wearing what I wore as sexy sleep wear when I was still young and sexy. Since I've seen the two Rosalind movies listed for tonight, I watched the 8:00 episode of Without a Trace and there was the lovely Spanish detective walking around in a purple, silk-or-satin baby doll pajama top as her daily blouse. Although in my mind it is completely incorrect as dress code for a policewoman (detective or not), the whole fashion aspect is an object of comedy for me.
Two years ago young ladies were all showing their navels for everyone to see, and now they're parading around in jammies all day!!!! I guess because of the movies and TV fashion goes from Pacific to Atlantic here and it takes a while for certain styles to catch hold. This one though is a real joke, but of course MCHammer had all the guys wearing their p.j. bottoms for a while didn't he?
How many of you ladies of my era find these fashions laughable, or am I a majority of one? Do you recall wearing those baby doll p.j.'s as teens?
Anne
She who knows not fashion
She who knows not fashion
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
-
charliechaplinfan
- Posts: 9040
- Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am
Anne, I hate the fashion for showing navels, it's still a current fashion over here. We haven't caught on to the PJ look yet. No doubt we will. It's not just your generation but the sensible ones in my generation too.
I despair over the fashions sometimes. Some are so unflattering, like squeezing yourself into a pair of jeans a couple of sizes too small and all the flesh spills out over the top. I believe the term for this is 'muffin top' because that is what it looks like.
I have a question. What is wrong with wearing clothes the right size. I can't understand the mentality of squeezing into a smaller size that just forces the overspill upwards or downwards.
My last gripe, I think this might be confined to the UK. Dress age appropriately, don't dress like a teenager if you are a middle age mum, you will only embarrass your kids.
Sometimes I'm a real old grouch
I despair over the fashions sometimes. Some are so unflattering, like squeezing yourself into a pair of jeans a couple of sizes too small and all the flesh spills out over the top. I believe the term for this is 'muffin top' because that is what it looks like.
I have a question. What is wrong with wearing clothes the right size. I can't understand the mentality of squeezing into a smaller size that just forces the overspill upwards or downwards.
My last gripe, I think this might be confined to the UK. Dress age appropriately, don't dress like a teenager if you are a middle age mum, you will only embarrass your kids.
Sometimes I'm a real old grouch
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
-
jdb1
I suppose here in NYC we see the "innest" of the in when it comes to fashion. As Alison says, the real problem with this baby doll look is the fit. Some women look cute in this style, and some look grotesque. Many don't wear bras with these tops, and I think that's a mistake - most NYC women tend to be rather bosomy, and these low-cut, band under the bustline fashions don't do them any favors if "the girls" (as they say on "What Not To Wear") aren't properly contained.
On the other hand, as I mentioned recently on some other thread, everyone's wearing dresses again, and those dresses are, for the most part, flattering and forgiving to most figures. The are also very retro, and I constantly hear myself saying "I had one just like that in 1966, '67, '68, etc." Who knew? If only I had saved them, my daughter could now be saving thousands on new clothes. (And to think, I used to be able to fit into her size!)
On the other hand, as I mentioned recently on some other thread, everyone's wearing dresses again, and those dresses are, for the most part, flattering and forgiving to most figures. The are also very retro, and I constantly hear myself saying "I had one just like that in 1966, '67, '68, etc." Who knew? If only I had saved them, my daughter could now be saving thousands on new clothes. (And to think, I used to be able to fit into her size!)
Bryce:
I tend to agree with you, but the one thing that, up to now, has at least been of some normalcy is the size. As CCFan said, clothes do not fit - they are either too large, or too small.
The flapper era of the 20's, was wild as was the 'bobbed hair' hair style for gals, but that was the first stage of women's equality - just not organized yet, a kind of 'starter' rebellion. The 40's sweaters and bobby sox were a direct result of nylon going to the armed forces for parachutes and back packs or what ever else they did with it, so blouses, dresses, and hosiery could not be manufactured. In the 60's everybody wanted to look like Jackie Kennedy with her simple little A-line dresses, boxy suits, and pill box hats. We wore that stuff shopping, to church, on dates, and everywhere else we went. . . but . . . at the same time we had the FADS of short shorts, mini skirts, and knee high boots. Those things were referred to as fads and not expected to stay around, which, except for the mini skirts did fade away. We found mini skirts much more comfy to wear than below the knee jobs, and stuck with them.
Except for the rage of jeans as formal wear, most fashions of the 70's and 80's were not that bad. Again you had your fads of the gothic look, and movie fads like Annie Hall, but again, at least everything fit.
Judith:
The only trouble with the dresses you wore and todays is most of your's were most likely made from polyester and would not fit in with todays fabrics.
Anne
I tend to agree with you, but the one thing that, up to now, has at least been of some normalcy is the size. As CCFan said, clothes do not fit - they are either too large, or too small.
The flapper era of the 20's, was wild as was the 'bobbed hair' hair style for gals, but that was the first stage of women's equality - just not organized yet, a kind of 'starter' rebellion. The 40's sweaters and bobby sox were a direct result of nylon going to the armed forces for parachutes and back packs or what ever else they did with it, so blouses, dresses, and hosiery could not be manufactured. In the 60's everybody wanted to look like Jackie Kennedy with her simple little A-line dresses, boxy suits, and pill box hats. We wore that stuff shopping, to church, on dates, and everywhere else we went. . . but . . . at the same time we had the FADS of short shorts, mini skirts, and knee high boots. Those things were referred to as fads and not expected to stay around, which, except for the mini skirts did fade away. We found mini skirts much more comfy to wear than below the knee jobs, and stuck with them.
Except for the rage of jeans as formal wear, most fashions of the 70's and 80's were not that bad. Again you had your fads of the gothic look, and movie fads like Annie Hall, but again, at least everything fit.
Judith:
The only trouble with the dresses you wore and todays is most of your's were most likely made from polyester and would not fit in with todays fabrics.
Anne
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
-
jdb1
On the contrary, Anne, 40 years ago we were still wearing cotton, wool and silk, and I was still sweating over an ironing board in the summer to keep my cotton dresses looking fresh. We associated polyester with unstylish men's "leisure suits." In fact, we looked down on synthetics then. As I recall it, it wasn't until the 70s that all you could find in the stores was polyester and rayon. At least, that was the case in New York.mrsl wrote:
Judith:
The only trouble with the dresses you wore and todays is most of your's were most likely made from polyester and would not fit in with todays fabrics.
Anne
As far as the suitability of fashions in any era - I think the question is not just what the clothing looks like, but what you look like in it. That's what makes one "stylish." The fact that "classic" styles always look appropriate, and remain in vogue for decades, indicates that it's not necessarily what you wear, but how you wear it. For example, I think the dresses of the 1930s were rather outlandish and uncomfortable looking, but a properly put together 1930s movie star looks great in them. Similarly, the wide lapels and huge shoulders of men's suits of the past - pretty ungainly, but not when someone like Cary Grant wore them.
-
charliechaplinfan
- Posts: 9040
- Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am
Do you have 'What Not to Wear' in the States. We have a program called 'How To Look Good Naked' which sounds vulgar but it isn't really. It's more about going back to basics and realising what kinds of clothes suit your body shape and emphasising your good points. Refreshingly it's not about spending loads of money on designer clothes or cosmetic surgery but high street fashions and over the counter not too expensive creams.
It's great, in my experience my husband isn't any help when it comes to choosing clothes and shop mirrors lie to you.
It's great, in my experience my husband isn't any help when it comes to choosing clothes and shop mirrors lie to you.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
-
jdb1
Yes, we have our WNTW, and we have our version of HTLGN as well. In fact, there are far too many such programs, and they seem to be made or broken depending upon the charm of the hosts. I enjoy WNTW, whose hosts are pure New York fashionistas, have very good taste, are very firm with their sometimes reluctant subjects, and would probably be lots of fun at a cocktail party.
"Naked" is hosted by Carson Kressley of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," had a very limited run around the time of the writers' strike here, disappeared, and has now returned. I suppose it is still finding its bearings. I wasn't very impressed with the one or two episodes I saw, although I do like Kressley in small doses. It needs work.
"Naked" is hosted by Carson Kressley of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," had a very limited run around the time of the writers' strike here, disappeared, and has now returned. I suppose it is still finding its bearings. I wasn't very impressed with the one or two episodes I saw, although I do like Kressley in small doses. It needs work.
-
charliechaplinfan
- Posts: 9040
- Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am
Some of your references are lost on me Bryce but I get the jist of what you are saying.
I have to agree that TV goes mad when it hits on a show that works. Suddenly every channel has a programme like it. I don't watch WNTWbut do sometimes watch HTLGN, like you say, it's because of the host and the advice.
I firmly believe you don't have to buy designer to look good, just buy decent quality clothes that wash and iron well and suit your body shape and age bracket. I'm not trying to make an ageist statement. Some of the best dressed and most elegant women are maturer women who take care of their appearance and dress in flattering styles. In fact I would go so far as to say that the most elegant women IMO are over 50.
I have to agree that TV goes mad when it hits on a show that works. Suddenly every channel has a programme like it. I don't watch WNTWbut do sometimes watch HTLGN, like you say, it's because of the host and the advice.
I firmly believe you don't have to buy designer to look good, just buy decent quality clothes that wash and iron well and suit your body shape and age bracket. I'm not trying to make an ageist statement. Some of the best dressed and most elegant women are maturer women who take care of their appearance and dress in flattering styles. In fact I would go so far as to say that the most elegant women IMO are over 50.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
-
jdb1
I don't agree, Bryce. I particularly like Stacy. Look, New York is one of the fashion capitals of the world - it's a business that brings in lots of income, and can foster some true creative talents. It's one of the things that NYC revolves upon. We have entire evenings of programming on our local City TV station about the fashion industry. It's not all frippery -- it's a business.
Stacy London (and nobody in NYC believes that's her real name) is very articulate, witty and knows what she's talking about. She and her co-host Clinton are also, despite their little zingers about the awfulness of their subject's clothing, quite sensitive to the delicate task they are performing. And for me, that is what the show is about, not just "fashion." If the truth be told, Stacy herself is no beauty, but she has style and loads of self-confidence.
Women are, voluntarily or not, slaves to their appearance, and some are totally overwhelmed by the idea that they are not worth anyone's attention. This isn't just a vanity thing -- it's a question of self-respect and self-worth. I think it's a truism: you can't really love others, or be an effective human being, if you don't respect yourself. After these women see themselves in stylish attire, with nice hair and appropriate makeup, and the initial rush of ego passes, they should be, if they are lucky, left with the notion that they matter, they are appealing to others, and they are worth the attention of others. You can't get anywhere in society, not commercially or personally, if you have no self-respect. How many of these women express shock and dismay that they are spending so much money (given to them by the show) on a new wardrobe. I don't think it's the actual expenditure that they are worried about; it's the idea of spending so much money on themselves, and not for someone else, they have trouble with.
This is no small thing, and this is why some of these fashion reality shows are crap. They don't really understand or respect their subjects. I enjoy seeing the women (and the few men they've helped) look at themselves with new eyes at the end of WNTW, saying "I though my clothes didn't matter, but now I see that they help me to feel good about myself." It's the feeling good about yourself part that's important.
"Sophisticated" New Yorker that I am, I have learned from Stacy and Clinton, and Carmindy the makeup lady, and gosh, I wish I could afford to get my hair done at Nick's salon.
Stacy London (and nobody in NYC believes that's her real name) is very articulate, witty and knows what she's talking about. She and her co-host Clinton are also, despite their little zingers about the awfulness of their subject's clothing, quite sensitive to the delicate task they are performing. And for me, that is what the show is about, not just "fashion." If the truth be told, Stacy herself is no beauty, but she has style and loads of self-confidence.
Women are, voluntarily or not, slaves to their appearance, and some are totally overwhelmed by the idea that they are not worth anyone's attention. This isn't just a vanity thing -- it's a question of self-respect and self-worth. I think it's a truism: you can't really love others, or be an effective human being, if you don't respect yourself. After these women see themselves in stylish attire, with nice hair and appropriate makeup, and the initial rush of ego passes, they should be, if they are lucky, left with the notion that they matter, they are appealing to others, and they are worth the attention of others. You can't get anywhere in society, not commercially or personally, if you have no self-respect. How many of these women express shock and dismay that they are spending so much money (given to them by the show) on a new wardrobe. I don't think it's the actual expenditure that they are worried about; it's the idea of spending so much money on themselves, and not for someone else, they have trouble with.
This is no small thing, and this is why some of these fashion reality shows are crap. They don't really understand or respect their subjects. I enjoy seeing the women (and the few men they've helped) look at themselves with new eyes at the end of WNTW, saying "I though my clothes didn't matter, but now I see that they help me to feel good about myself." It's the feeling good about yourself part that's important.
"Sophisticated" New Yorker that I am, I have learned from Stacy and Clinton, and Carmindy the makeup lady, and gosh, I wish I could afford to get my hair done at Nick's salon.
-
Mr. O'Brady
- Posts: 123
- Joined: April 3rd, 2008, 10:06 pm
I dress like I'm homeless most of the time.
I rarely agree with you, Bryce, but there's something we have in common. I mostly wear old jeans, tee shirts with no advertising, and shorts that don't hang past my knees. I have some shirts that must be at least fifteen years old. I invented the grunge look long before it became popular and passed.
And I refuse to watch any of the countless fashion reality shows. They bore me to tears.
I rarely agree with you, Bryce, but there's something we have in common. I mostly wear old jeans, tee shirts with no advertising, and shorts that don't hang past my knees. I have some shirts that must be at least fifteen years old. I invented the grunge look long before it became popular and passed.
And I refuse to watch any of the countless fashion reality shows. They bore me to tears.
-
jdb1
And men don't face the same social pressures regarding appearance that women face, even today. I'm not surprised that such shows don't speak to you gentlemen. You so casually and proudly state that you dress like derelicts. What women would consciously want to hear herself described in that way? You'd get amused chuckles; she'd get derision. You don't know how lucky you are.
I contend that such programs can be very helpful, and even comforting, to women who lack self-confidence. As the hosts say constantly, "When you look pretty, you feel pretty." And often, they wisely substitute the word "confident" for "pretty." That's really the issue these shows deal with.
I contend that such programs can be very helpful, and even comforting, to women who lack self-confidence. As the hosts say constantly, "When you look pretty, you feel pretty." And often, they wisely substitute the word "confident" for "pretty." That's really the issue these shows deal with.