A Fashion Public Service Announcement

By now you know that I’m a bit of a wannabe fashionista, whether anyone cares or not. I’ve been fashion-challenged all my life, but somehow, in my middle years, I’ve suddenly decided that I’m some kind of fashion guru because I’ve worn the worst of the worst and am now somehow better for it. A couple of posts ago, I blogged about visible bra straps with no purpose. Today I tackle the topic of short skirts and big bags, which by themselves do not cause problems. However, together they can be very, um, revealing.

My job puts me in the way of hundreds of people a day, so I have plenty of time to observe what the general population is wearing. Lately, I’ve noticed on several occasions a phenomenon that I think I need to mention, if only to inform the public at large about the potentially toxic mix of short skirts and big, bulky bags.

I don’t mind short skirts. I’ve worn enough of them over the years that I’ve developed the attitude that if you want to wear something that shows your thighs, no matter how sightly or unsightly, you should. Doesn’t matter to me. Short skirts serve a number of purposes, especially on hot days. But here’s what you need to remember…

If you carry an over-the-shoulder bag that rests against your body, it might catch on the fabric of your skirt and cause it to hike up and show everyone your panties.

It’s true. I’ve seen it, in some cases unfortunately. Young women will totter off down the street completely unaware that their undies are showing in the back because their tote bags, as they rest against their hips, have captured their skirts and are holding them in place while the rest of their body moves forward, thus exposing their underwear, and, in some cases, butt cheek.

I’d never thought of this before, but now I’m super aware of where my purse touches my body in case it catches on my clothing. I’m also hyper-sensitive to red skin caused by purse straps, such as when you wear a tank top and your purse strap rubs your skin red where it touches. I used to vainly think that people were scoping my Michelle Obama arms, but then when I looked in the mirror I saw red splotches where my purse strap had been. This also happens when you wear a tank top and lean back in a chair—red skin everywhere.

I realize that as far as public service announcements go, this is pretty lame. However, from the grateful response I got from the young lady who wasn’t wearing panties with her tiny skirt and large tote bag ensemble, I think it could be pretty important. It might help someone out there who’s been wondering why all those people stare as she walks by. Is it her figure? Her cute blouse? Her jaunty step? Or her Wonder Woman boy shorts showing?

What about you? Is there something you see happening fashion-wise that people aren't aware of? You can help a tremendous number of folks by pointing it out here. Not as many probably as were impacted by learning that you're supposed to push in on the ends of the foil box to hold the spindle in place, but a large number nevertheless, so please do share. :)

Rated Blah for Nudity

I realize that I’m old and unhip and probably not the first person one would turn to in a fashion emergency; however, that has not and will not ever stop me from giving an opinion on trends I see that even my most fashion-challenged characters (Vector Schloss, anyone?) would cringe at.

The latest trend in Hollywood, one that the rest of the U.S. will no doubt be saddled with for the next three years as it spreads across the country and finally dies an ignoble death on the east coast, is nude. I don’t mean like naked nude, which I could deal with. I mean like nude nude, as in the color nude.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I own two nude bras, which I wear regularly. However, it is not the same color as the nude being foisted upon the guileless masses and it’s not worn to be trendy, but functional. Therefore, it doesn’t count (my post, my rules…lol). I could give a hundred reasons why normal, rational women should avoid this trend, but I will narrow it down to five.

Reason #1—It’s ridiculous. As I mentioned above, nude is not really nude as in naked, which would look better. It’s actually a shade of flesh-colored, which means it’s some kind of tanish to mid-whitish to orange-ish, depending on the designer. That’s a lot of “ishes” for a color, and they weigh it down. Nude is not evil in and of itself, but its indisputable versatility brands it as an accessorizing tone that overstepped its bounds. It's a basic color and nothing more. Go back to the chorus line where you belong, Nude! You’ll never make it as the lead.

Reason #2—It’s boring and a sham. Nude is really just another shade of brown, except it’s supposed to fool the viewer of a particular outfit into believing that the wearer might be exposing some skin. What a sham. First, most women who want to bare their skin wear dresses with holes in them, plain and simple. Why bother with the fake stuff? And second, everyone knows you’re going for a shocking or sexy look, so it’s not shocking or sexy. Brown, like gray, can be incredibly nondescript if not paired with another shade of something, and it can be sexy if accessorized by a complementary color. However, nothing complements nude because it just sort of blends in with your skin because…it’s FREAKIN’ NUDE! The name says it all. You could put rubies, diamonds, and sapphires with a nude dress and all people would see is a chick wearing rubies, diamonds, and sapphires. The dress just sort of blandly blends in. Blah.

Reason #3—It’s confusing. Regardless of what fashion masters claim, nude peep-toe pumps are not the answer to your prayers. This line of thinking galls me. The idea is that if you wear nude peep-toe pumps like Kate Middleton touring Canada, the flesh color will give your legs a longer look because there won’t be any color on your foot to break the visual line. We use this same idea in ballroom dance competitions—flesh-toned shoes give the legs a longer look. However, we’re competing in DanceSport and lines are important. Unless you’re warming up for Dancing with the Stars, wearing nude shoes makes it look like you can’t color-coordinate or that you’re not wearing any shoes. Granted, most men can’t tell salmon from pink, but they can still be put off by a chick who looks like she’s not wearing any shoes with her pretty dress. They know you’re not barefoot, but since they can’t see your shoes, something must be amiss. It confuses them rather than sending a subliminal message such as, “Hey, stud, look at my loooooooooooooong legs!” Pick something that matches—men like women who can put two colors together—and quit trying to look like some leggy model. The designers aren’t lying about nude colors giving you a longer line, but really, is it worth confounding your date to look about one inch taller? If you’re 5’7”, do you really think appearing 5’8” is going to be the deal breaker?

Reason #4—I don’t like it. I’ve been through more pictures of celebrities with “red carpet” style than I care to admit, and I’ve never, ever seen anyone who can carry off nude. Their dresses may have a nice design, but the color makes it impossible to truly enjoy the ensemble because of the visual ambiguity of it all. Most women who wear nude colors look washed out, not cool and hip.

Reason #5—My heroines wouldn’t wear it. They’d go naked, and most of them do, but they wouldn’t wear something that makes them fade into oblivion from the neck down. Optical illusions aren't sexy; they're optical illusions.

Take my advice. If you must wear nude, match it with a colorful scarf or some other accessory that will offset its absolute blah-ness. Life is too short to wear a color that cheats your beauty.