?

Log in

No account? Create an account
I am not going to cite where I found this - some of you likely saw it… - Melodramatic, corsetted mistress of the obscure
May 8th, 2008
09:59 am

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
I am not going to cite where I found this - some of you likely saw it for yourself, but I believe I take exception to the following:

for a few convention outfits [NOT costumes, it's meant to actually look decent].


*blink, blink* The commentor seems to feel that costumes don't look 'decent'. I will admit, there are quite a few costumes I have seen that didn't look all that good, but there are non-costumes I have seen that didn't look all that good, either. Seems to me there's a bias in the commentor's thinking: "Costumes = bad; outfits = good"


Anyone else with thoughts on this?

(8 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:clevermanka
Date:May 8th, 2008 03:11 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Anyone else with thoughts on this?

Yes. The OP seems to be wearing his/her ass for a hat.

Edited at 2008-05-08 03:27 pm (UTC)
[User Picture]
From:kd0r
Date:May 8th, 2008 03:11 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Link Please!
David
[User Picture]
From:solan_t
Date:May 8th, 2008 03:19 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I won't directly link, but it's not far down from this post on my Friends list....
[User Picture]
From:affreca
Date:May 8th, 2008 03:41 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Whiskey Tango? Because the one she links to is decent?

For corsets at cons, the ones I've seen that I'd consider decent are usually part of costumes. Jeans and a corset is not a look most women can pull off.
[User Picture]
From:kijjohnson
Date:May 8th, 2008 04:45 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yeah, it's ignorant and biased.
From:the_themiscyran
Date:May 8th, 2008 05:32 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I looked at the post, too. It seems to be a semantical difference. I have used the words outfit and costume for convention-wear in the past, but usually to designate the difference between what I would wear on the floor while working and what I might wear out to the parties later, not the relative quality of the clothing itself. When I first read your post, I thought she might mean as opposed to "indecent" - which some con-costumes inevitably are. That was good for a laugh. But no, I think she merely suffers from the ignorance of not being exposed to high quality costumes...perhaps she can be educated...
[User Picture]
From:silverfae
Date:May 9th, 2008 12:27 am (UTC)
(Link)
If an outfit is something that you make with care and skill, and a costume is something that you buy from a "costume shop".. well, there's a justification for the opinion.

Devil's advocate here. But yeah, I've seen lots of crappy "costumes", there should be another word for skilled, quality costuming.
[User Picture]
From:emessar
Date:May 9th, 2008 12:45 am (UTC)

My Semantics Can Totally Beat Up Her Semantics

(Link)
I also think she is also caught up on semantics, but is operating under erroneous definitions. She specifies "convention" outfits. As someone who is also hung up on semantics, I would argue that the only "outfits" specific to conventions are costumes.

Case in point ... I give you definition 3 of costume:
3. fashion of dress appropriate to a particular occasion or season: dancing costume; winter costume.

Um, can we say convention costume?


Oh wait ... we should check the second definition of outfit just to make sure:
2. a set of usually matching or harmonious garments and accessories worn together; coordinated costume.


My semantics can totally beat up her semantics.

;)

Mike
Powered by LiveJournal.com