It's because you didn't have a strong father figure isn't it?

Joyce ,'Chosen'


Natter 43: I Love My Dead Gay Whale Crosspost.  

Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.


juliana - Mar 09, 2006 12:12:29 pm PST #3078 of 10001
I’d be lying if I didn’t say that I miss them all tonight…

I have no recollection of pockets in formal gowns during the 80s. Puffy sleeves, yes. Big bows, yes. Pockets, no.

It's not that they remind me of the 80s, it's just where my brain wants to put them.


Jessica - Mar 09, 2006 12:12:30 pm PST #3079 of 10001
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset

I think pockets in formalwear have the potential to look far more elegant and streamlined than carrying a purse.


JZ - Mar 09, 2006 12:15:46 pm PST #3080 of 10001
See? I gave everybody here an opportunity to tell me what a bad person I am and nobody did, because I fuckin' rule.

Hands in pockets isn't the only way to look jaunty or insouciant in formalwear; it is, however, my favorite way.

Also, I despise being out at a big event and have to find a place to stash one's purse or hide it or find someone to babysit it before getting up to dance. Formally dressed with everything on my person and both hands free at all times=bliss.


§ ita § - Mar 09, 2006 12:15:54 pm PST #3081 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

I think pockets in formalwear have the potential to look far more elegant and streamlined than carrying a purse.

I opine in the opposite direction, because I think it's easier to find a lovely purse than a good place to put pockets in a lovely dress. And I'm driven by the dress above all--you can after all leave the less-than-optimal purse somewhere, but the less-than-optimal-pocket-accomodating line of the dress goes with you everywhere.


Lee - Mar 09, 2006 12:19:17 pm PST #3082 of 10001
The feeling you get when your brain finally lets your heart get in its pants.

I have no real opinion on pockets in formal wear.

I am however wearing a dress today, which seems to be confusing a lot of people.


§ ita § - Mar 09, 2006 12:21:02 pm PST #3083 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

I am however wearing a dress today, which seems to be confusing a lot of people.

The one dress I wear to work is maroon velvet with no place for pockets. The insouciance must come from the footwear. Or the fact that I'm almost head-to-toe in velvet, I suppose.


Toddson - Mar 09, 2006 12:27:29 pm PST #3084 of 10001
Friends don't let friends read "Atlas Shrugged"

I rather like the pockets, and I imagine it would be nice to have a place to tuck some necessities without having to carry a purse. I think they just have to be careful with the placement and how they end up sticking their hands in them.

I also remember reading - years and years ago - something by, I believe, Samuel R. Delaney in which a woman complained that in having her rank (royal to commoner?) reduced meant she could no longer have pockets in her clothes.


sarameg - Mar 09, 2006 12:35:05 pm PST #3085 of 10001

Just survived the weird focus group/outside review/ whatever meeting.

I think all the issues brought up can be summed tidily as the Management is the problem

Alternatively, Bureaucracy is teh SUCK.

Oh, with a side of Everyone hates the CIO.

It was interesting.


Steph L. - Mar 09, 2006 12:53:15 pm PST #3086 of 10001
I look more rad than Lutheranism

Okay, yes, I stand corrected. You don't not love the pocket, you merely wish to deny women in formalwear their God-given right to look jaunty and insouciant.

I love the pocket! In non-formal wear, in kangaroos, Hot Pockets, Lean Pockets, pocket doors -- the pocket is a beautiful and convenient thing!

But formalwear! It's....*formal*!

It is entirely my intent to flame this into a Buffista battle to stand alongside prescriptivist/descriptionist, Atkins, and the composition of chili.

Bring it, pocket hoor!!!


§ ita § - Mar 09, 2006 12:56:14 pm PST #3087 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

It's not fair to have the kerfuffle without erinaceous.