These potato-sack dresses that people are wearing: thumbs up. These look good. Some of them are kitschy and vintage, and we all agree that those are wrong. But even the future-bebop stuff is better than the dread bohemian clothing and, god, above all, those horrible, blocky, wooden beads. Correct me if I'm wrong, but any woman can wear these potato sacks, right? They obscure the figure, so there's no issue there, leaving only concerns about color and design and style.
Now, back to playing tackle football using broken glass for cleats.
I don't know about this argument that because sack dresses obscure the body, they must be flattering. Are muumuus flattering? Are enormous sweatshirts flattering?
These dresses can be lovely, sure, if they're very short and topping some nice legs, and if you don't mind your torso looking like a tube as large as your widest point. But universally flattering? You are out of your damn mind, Capps.
It's true. Maybe not out of your mind, but clearly male. These are great, but not everyone looks good in them. Capps.
Posted by: Marissa at April 9, 2007 5:28 PMThey're right. It's a sad, counter-intuitive truth that the baggier/shapelessier an item of clothing, the skinnier you have to be to pull it off properly.
Posted by: Emily at April 9, 2007 6:16 PMWith this sort of clothing, it's somewhat about the woman underneath, but more about the cut and the fabric.
Posted by: Jackmormon at April 9, 2007 11:14 PMI agree with the females. Only the very thin and impish look good in clothes meant for blobby toddlers. There needs to be contrasting thin limbs for it to work.
Posted by: Josie at April 9, 2007 11:41 PMI agree with Jackmormon. All of you sound bitter but each of you could pull this off.
Hey, wasn't this model an actress of some sort? I recognize her.
Posted by: Kriston at April 10, 2007 9:50 AMI'm not bitter, just realistic. And yes, I could absolutely pull that off.
Posted by: Emily at April 10, 2007 3:39 PMSee, this isn't the thread for, blah blah, Capps doesn't know what he's talking about, it's an open this-is-why-I'm-hot thread.
Posted by: Kriston at April 10, 2007 3:57 PMI disagree. This thread is definitely all about blah blah Capps doesn't know what he's talking about. It just happens to touch on - as all good threads do - why Emily is hot. Let me just say once more for the record: Kriston, you don't know what you're talking about. I'll also add, that the inspiration for dresses like this one is entirely vintage (60's, man), so your statement that some of the more vintage versions are "wrong" is a bit cloudy. Also, you don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by: Marissa at April 10, 2007 4:46 PMThis dress is great (minus the offensive blazer), doesn't look at all vintage, and has the same blocky shoulder straps and potato sack thing going.
Posted by: Kriston at April 10, 2007 4:52 PM> This thread is definitely all about blah blah Capps doesn't know what he's talking about.
I submit this is just a willful show of ignorance, the better to solidify those Y-chromosomal bona fides without alienating the art fag set.
Posted by: Dan at April 10, 2007 8:16 PMKriston...this whole post is like...it's like you're looking at Twiggy and then saying, "Uh, yeah, sure, Wholihay, WHATEVER."
Posted by: sarahb at April 10, 2007 11:20 PMIs supporting body-concealing clothing for women the best way to assert one's male heterosexuality? Shouldn't he be posting about tube tops to that end?
Posted by: kate at April 11, 2007 11:54 AMi thought real women had curves? curves really do not go well with those dresses. my girlfried, for one, who i think looks pretty dern good, has her nice figure obliterated by those stupid things. count me out.
Posted by: matt w. at April 11, 2007 1:54 PMhttp://gofugyourself.typepad.com/go_fug_yourself/2007/04/fugga_jamison.html
you're so wrong, capps.
Posted by: kate at April 17, 2007 10:35 AM