ChrisMaverick dotcom

on makeovers for girls (boobies boobies boobies)…

Went home sick today. Being sick sucks. Anyway, didn’t feel like doing nothing while I was at home, so I figured I might as well post pics from this weekend.

papertygre and georgejas both expressed the desire to utilize my shopping expertise and get new clothes. Whee, its just like playing with life-sized Barbie dolls. This is what we got. Here’s what they looked like before:

George and Ratha (pre makeover)

And here are the after pics:

Each girl basically got 3 outfits that I tried to fit into the scheme of their specific needs.

George needed to get clothing for work. This was a very tricky constraint. She wanted to be able to be kinda stylish, and display some attitude, but we needed to work within the constraints of things she could wear to work. The first outfit I am kind of torn on. I really like the top. Or tops I should say. What she has here is a black stretch camisole with built in bra cups(she also has a white one, not pictured) that she’s wearing under a sheer lace blouse with matching lace tie. A word about the camisole. the built in bra padding is actually key here. At the risk of sounding like a sexual harassment case in the making, having good looking boobs is actually pretty important in a business setting. Even if you’re not trying to appear sexy, having your chest well supported is going to cause a look of better confidence. Also, not having a good bra is going to give a very subtle aura of unprofessionality, The padding in this camisole is going to give her support like a bra would, without leaving bra straps that might come out from under the camisole top, which in the business world would seem sloppy. What I’m not as happy with are the slacks she’s wearing them with. I wish we could have found a nice, sophisticated but comfortable ankle length skirt to go with it. Unfortunately, she doesn’t really like to wear skirts. I also wish we had gone shoe shopping.

Here we actually managed to get her into a skirt, but I’m unsure of whether or not she’d be able to wear it to work. Its an extremely casual, soft, stretch corduroy skirt with a tie belt. Surprisingly, she seemed to like it a lot. I just wish I could have found a top that I thought really worked with it. there’s not necessarily anything wrong with this one. In fact I like the fit of it. But it would have been much better if we could have paired it with something that matched its casualness. Again, I wish we had gone shoe shopping. My recommendation here would be a pair knee high brown leather boots.

Easily my favorite look that we got for George. Here we have the same stretch camisole from before, and the same slacks, paired with a worn sued sport blazer. I love this look, and I think it suits her extremely well. It looks like casual and comfortable but still professional, especially for a programmer. Given her basic personality, I think tomboy style clothing works well for George. Since you can’t wear overalls and baseball caps to work at a bank, I think this is a good next step match. Its has the earthy I’m as tough as one of the boys look to it, but stays feminized because of form fitting spandex top as well. Speaking of the tomboy look. I kind of wish we were shopping for play clothes as well as work clothes. I totally have a bunch of awesome ideas for how to put together the super-hot tomboy look. Oh well. I guess that’s for another makeover.

More mixing and matching to create variations on the themes that were already built. This time we’re using the same black dress shirt from before, but with the casual slacks. This is a pretty standard no frills look, but it works for her if for not other reason than the fact that she’s so comfortable looking in it. This is the kind of thing you can wear to work on a no meeting day and just not stand out., Sit at your desk and work. Returning to the breast talk from the first picture, in all the pics with the fitted shirt, George is wearing a Body by Victoria shaping demi-bra from Victoria’s Secret. I’ve recommended this bra to other people (including beststephi) as I really like the look of it. VS reps have even told me that it is their best selling bra. It does a great job of shaping the breasts and its material is specifically made to not create wrinkles or lines in clothing its worn under (that’s actually the purpose of the entire Body by Victoria collection). I’m also told that its extremely comfortable.

Ratha’s needs were a little different. She works as a contractor from home, but is also going back to grad school and so the environment can be a lot more relaxed and fun. Frankly, she can look younger and sexier than George without being out of place. Ratha seems to not care for the tight form fitting low rise jeans that are popular at the moment, but I still wanted her to have a casual but sexy denim look. She already had the worn/faded jeans, so we added a nighty inspired slip top. Its not meant to be underwear. Really it isn’t. To complete the look she also has a brand new Angel’s collection uplifting demi-bra from Victoria’s Secret. I had originally recommended the Body shaping demi-bra but she liked the flashiness of this one better. I actually think that’s a good choice, especially for an outfit like this, because anytime the bra shows, it makes it seem like its part of the outfit. Where the Body collection is intended to make the world think that you don’t need a bra, the Angel’s collection is intended to let the world know that you have a sexy one.

Like George, Ratha also got a sheer lace shirt. Hers is a little less transparent though and is white. We matched this with some semi-baggy black cargo pants. As you can see, she also has a black camisole top. More on that in the next paragraph, but what I really wanted to point out here is the manner in which the look comes together. What we have here is a style carefully crafted to make it appear as though she doesn’t care about style at all. The hair is tied back. The pants are uneven and a little chaotic (the pants have draw strings near the ankles which create a wonderful unkempt look. Not only is the camisole dark enough that it shows through the shirt, in a manner in which boys might not realize its intentional (ooh, I can see her underwear!), but its tight and small enough that it looks like it doesn’t quite fit. The whole outfit says, I just got up this morning and threw the stuff that was lying next to the bed on, and yet I look this damn good.

This is a variation on the last outfit that I really like. In fact, the variation was amazing simple. She unbuttoned the blouse. What you end up with is an updated version of thew way Ratha has tended to dress all along. Instead of just jeans, she has the cargo pants that have a bit more style to them. The camisole is just a little sexier than the babydoll t-shirts she might normally wear. To make it a little more fun than just a plain flat black, it has a raised velvety textured design to it. And the blouse is still there for added modesty. If I’d add anything, it would maybe be makeup (over heavy mascara or something) and maybe a studded bracelet for that old school hard core biker look (especially if she took off the white shirt). About the black cami. Unlike George’s she doesn’t have the built in bra cups. She could have gotten a tanktop or wifebeater and just worn a regular bra under it (and not cared about showing straps since her environment is more casual), but this top is tight enough spandex to be supportive and since she is going more casual, she doesn’t need to worry as much about the extra lift here.

The final outfit was just really fun. Ratha had looked at several plaid pleated miniskirts and didn’t quite like any of them. This denim one seems to suit her well though. Its actually not quite trendy, which I like. Its almost played out since its sort of reminiscent of the kind of stuff Xtina wore a year or two ago, but since she’s using it differently its like she’s saying “I just don’t care.” I love the matching of the brown tights with the brown babydoll. Its also kind of a retro 80s Madonna thing, only less pink. Here she has the uplifting bra on again, which really works because different than the “I’m sexy because I just don’t care” look of the previous outifts, this one screams “look at me, I’m sexy. Look dammit! LOOK!” She’s already got the short skirt to show off the legs, since she’s not going with something over the top like a bustier for the the top (a good choice, as that would be too much) the bra adds a little something that tells the boys. “Hey look here! Don’t I have nice breasts!” if only to have them stare long enough to yell at them for being pigs and make them look away. Only one change I would make here would be to wear full combat boots instead of the shoes she has on (which I liked a lot for both of her other two outfits). Or maybe even cowboy boots. Something that just totally doesn’t fit, to make the look a little more quirky. My first instinct was actually to go with Chucks or something, but that’s almost too commonplace these days.

There you go… opinions? Comments? Love letters to the ladies? Death threats to me?

59 comments for “on makeovers for girls (boobies boobies boobies)…

  1. avatar
    October 18, 2004 at 3:06 pm

    1. I wish you and George had gone shoe shopping too – the socks don’t do the outfits justice. 🙂

    2. Ratha looks amazing in that first pic. Credit the bra or the slip top, whatever you like, but that’s definitely a head-turning look. (I’m not crazy about the jeans underneath given its length on her, but I understand the idea you were going for.)


    • avatar
      October 18, 2004 at 8:07 pm

      1) Yeah, but as she pointed out later, she does have other shoes, and hey, maybe we’ll go out and pick up some more some other day.

      2) Yeah, I actually really like how that turned out. Since we didn’t actually try it with the tighter jeans I don’t know how it would have looked, but I actually like how it works out. Oh, and for the record, it actually is meant to be a shirt, not just a dress, so though she could probably get away with wearing it that way, I think I like it much better with pants.

  2. avatar
    October 18, 2004 at 3:24 pm

    haha cool stuff. you like making people over huh? =P

    • avatar
      October 18, 2004 at 8:08 pm

      yep. Very much so. Like having life size barbies.

    • avatar
      October 18, 2004 at 10:13 pm

      You ought to run a clinic. 🙂

      • avatar
        October 19, 2004 at 6:10 am

        I’d love to. Do you have venture capital for me?

  3. avatar
    October 18, 2004 at 4:04 pm

    That’s my big brother – always the Victoria’s Secret expert. 😉

    • avatar
      October 18, 2004 at 8:09 pm

      yep. Well, someone has to be, right? Hmmm… maybe I can get a job judging fit. 🙂

  4. avatar
    October 18, 2004 at 5:01 pm

    I prefer the “before” picture. Sexy!

    • avatar
      October 18, 2004 at 6:45 pm

      The “before” picture is quite hot, isn’t it?

      • avatar
        October 18, 2004 at 8:11 pm

        well, I certainly don’t dispute that they are attractive. But I definitely wouldn’t say its better than the after pics.

    • avatar
      October 18, 2004 at 7:03 pm

      Completely agree.

      • avatar
        October 18, 2004 at 8:15 pm

        same question to you. Why? While I certainly don’t think they’re unattractive in the before pic, I can’t say its better. George has on an old sweatshirt and Ratha had only been out of the shower like 10 seconds and hadn’t even combed her hair yet. So is there something you specifically like there, or something you specifically don’t like elsewhere?

        • avatar
          October 18, 2004 at 9:55 pm

          A simple equation: wet = hot

          I do like the after pictures; don’t get me wrong. I also like the before picture.

          • avatar
            October 19, 2004 at 6:12 am

            I guess there can be something to the wet equals hot equation, but I guess I tend to think wet belongs more with bikini’s and less with t-shirts and jeans. But I can at least see where you’re going.

        • avatar
          October 19, 2004 at 4:53 am

          Like Jameel says, wet = hot … Though for Ratha it wasn’t consciously “wet”; it was “slightly disheveled”, which I generally find hot. Plus, belly.

          On further reflection, I like George’s “after #1” and “after #4” better than her “before”.

          I like Ratha’s “after #2” best among the afters, with #4 close behind, but I’m still not honestly sure whether I like those better than her “before”. Let’s face it, she’s wearing less in the “before” picture. The T-shirt is not all that immensely concealing. And I Like Skin.

          Problem with Ratha’s “after #1” is no matter how much you say it, the slip looks like underwear to me, and so with the jeans it just looks completely wrong to me. Put her in just the slip and I know exactly what picture I’d support. 😉

          • avatar
            October 19, 2004 at 6:27 am

            bah! see, this is why boys (I am a girl in this context) are not allowed to pick out clothing. Dennis Miller once said, in regards to changing fashion trends, something to the effect of:

            “Ladies, there is only one outfit you need. A miniskirt, a low cut, midriff baring halter top, fishnets and pumps. I promise you will always be in style.”

            Looking sexy in only underwear is a whole different fashion exercise. But you can’t do it every day. It would lose its meaning. That’s the whole reason Jammy Jam is special. Take for instance Madonna of the mid-80 to early 90s. Once you start wearing nothing but a cone shaped bra out to do your mini-mart shopping it just becomes harder to impress people.

            Also, for neither of them was I going for purely sexy as a look. Unlike Kenn, they were paying themselves, so I needed to get them stuff that would function for the purposes they needed clothes for. If you want to get together a drive and raise a couple hundred dollars, I’m positive I could find a girl (or 20) who would be perfectly willing to have me “sexy them up” as an example.

          • avatar
            October 19, 2004 at 9:45 am

            I can name a guy who’d be willing to let you “sexy them up” as an example.

            I just had an idea. Budget Challenge!

          • avatar
            October 19, 2004 at 10:38 am

            yeah, budget challenge can defintely be done…. do it all the time for myself.

            The problem with doing a guy, is I don’t think Shawn is willing to gather up $200 to have YOU be sexy. But hey, who knows…

          • avatar
            October 19, 2004 at 10:44 am

          • avatar
            October 19, 2004 at 10:56 am

            well really, since when is “being sexy for shawn” high on your list of priorities?

    • avatar
      October 18, 2004 at 7:18 pm

      I also agree. Especially the little bit of midriff showing, mmm.

      • avatar
        October 18, 2004 at 8:24 pm

        hmmm… well at least you gave one reason. Better than all the boys. I agree the showing tummy thing is tres sexy. Couldn’t do that with George because they were work clothes, but again, that would sort of be implicit in my feminine tomboy look I talked about. As for Ratha, you can sort of tell that the midriff is exposed in pic #2 (it was a little more obvious in person than it was in the picture). And in the third picture she pulled down the cami down a little farther than I would have her rathered. As she walks around in it though, you’re going to see a definite hint of belly, just like in the before pic.

    • avatar
      October 18, 2004 at 8:10 pm

      ummm… why exactly do you think so? Do you have something against the new clothes or is there something you just really like about the old ones?

      • avatar
        October 20, 2004 at 9:45 am

        I loathe clothing that shouldn’t be worn during carpentry. I like comfort and utility, and that preference got tangled with what I find attractive on women. Ratha looks like she just played football or moved furniture, and George looks ready to curl up with a book or a beer.

        I bet that I judge women by how they dress, and if a women places higher regard on looking conventionally eye-candyish rather than dressing efficiently for tasks, I assume that she is not the type of women I want to spend any time with. Women who dress in tshirts and jeans are more likely to be tolerable to converse with, and are therefor more likely sexual partner candidates. So, dishevelled tomboy == sexy, prom queen == useless and uninteresting.

        I also dig scars.

        • avatar
          October 20, 2004 at 11:54 am

          Ok, you’ve done a good job of at least eloquently stating your argument here. I’m going to punch holes in it now, because its flawed in like a gazillion ways (I’m gonna give you 5). Don’t take it personally:

          1) you make the assumption that everyone finds the same clothing comfortable that you do. I took much care in making sure that the clothes that they got were comfortable for them, and I think they’d both agree that they are. Maverick Makeovers aside, It would still be flawed. Just because you find a t-shirt comfortable, that doesn’t mean everyone does. With girls, one obvious thing to show this is bras. I know some women who find wearing bras to be an extreme inconvenience and quite uncomfortable. I know others who would never leave the house without them, because they find that uncomfortable. Some people like how gym shoes feel, some people hate them. Some women (and men) love the free feeling of a skirt, and some find them annoying. etc. etc. etc. So since you can never really gauge how the person is actually feeling about the outfit they’re wearing, your basic premise becomes flawed.

          2) Ratha did not just play football. George was was not going to be drinking. I wouldn’t wear my wrestling clothes to work and I would wear my work clothes to wrestling. There are different outfits appropriate to different occasions. You may disagree here, I suppose. But I am the czar of fashion or something, and I’m sticking to that claim. If for no other reason, we obviously, at least anecodotally agree that clothing makes an impression on others. I expect me might also agree that it is usually better to create a favorable impression. While you can’t please all the people all of the time, I would surmise that my theories on fashion will probably favorable affect more than yours, and therefore by the 80/20 rule is probably better to apply.

          3) You state that you judge women by how they dress but state that you find women who dress simply to impress men to be unappealing. The breakdown of this argument as circular reasoning should be obvious. If they made a conscious effort to only wear t-shirts and jeans, then they’d essentially be doing what you were saying was unappealing in the first place.

          4) Making the assumptions that someone is unintelligent because they are pretty or fashionable is an extremely chauvinistic and prejudicial thing to do. And frequently just wrong. If you do that, you’re probably missing out. Ratha and George are exactly the same conversationalists in the later pictures as the first one. So your reasoning here is instantly flawed. The world simply doesn’t map to the convenient premise you want it to here. At the very least, I am more interesting than just about anyone, and I’m damn pretty.

          5) Ratha’s scar is much more visible in the new clothes than it was in the first picture

          • avatar
            October 20, 2004 at 3:23 pm

            I was just trying to explain my preference. I wasn’t claiming some logically derived truth that everyone should apply. You can’t (and aren’t) tell me that my opinion is wrong, and I’m not doing that to anyone else. If you’re trying to apply “reasoning” to this situation, I don’t know what you’d do.

            Also, I didn’t say prom queens are not intelligent. I suggested that they are culturally different enough from me that I would not be interested in a conversation.

            It’s about culture and learning mechanisms, not logic or popular concensus.

            I would reply more coherantly, but my linux workshop is starting.

          • avatar
            October 20, 2004 at 4:45 pm

            nope, I’m not at all trying to change your views on what’s attractive. I have no problem with your opinions at all. Its the reasoning I was taking issue with.

            If you’d simply said “t-shirts and sweatshirts are sexy” I would have said “ah, ok, if you think so, to each their own” or something like that. I might have made some small joke at your expense like I did with Jameel. But that’s just cuz I’m an asshole. But given that you pointed out actual well thought out (which they were) rationales for that opinion, I felt justified in pointing out the holes in them.

            Take for instance your most recent comment about prom queens. You’re still implying a cultural difference, but I argue its imagined. Logically speaking, I would theorize that given equal effort, the vast majority of people would rather be attractive than not. Now, being attractive is not effortless. Simply put, one must bathe, take care of hygeine, and get dressed (regardless of the style they dress in). So some effort must be applied even to have the wet hair and t-shirt look. So the best your argument can really boil down to is you don’t want someone who spends more effort on their appearance than they do on X, where X is whatever traits you do find attractive. For the sake of this argument. Lets say that X is playing pinball. Because pinball chicks are hot. Ok, so certainly if one just showers and puts on a t-shirt and jeans and heads to the arcade, then one has plenty of time to play pinball all day. If one feels the need to shave her legs, apply makeup and perfume and put together a well chosen outfit, that might take time out of her pinball day. Assuming that by simply looking at an outfit, you can tell how long it took the girl to get ready in the morning (an assumption which I also think is flawed) you’d be able to tell who spent more time getting ready and conversely which girl is most devoted to pinball.

            But in the real world, there are more activities. You can’t tell if the girl has more time to get ready because she’s skimping on pinball or because she’s skimping on sleep. Maybe she’s a faster dresser. Maybe she works less hours. Maybe she just is more comfortable in skirts than pants, and being comfortable helps her pinball game. There are just too many variables. Throw in the fact that maybe it simply isn’t any harder for her to wear clothes that are more fashionable and you’ve just got way to uncontrolled a scenario for your statement of reasoning to function.

            Of course the other possibility is that maybe she really doesn’t care about pinball but is still a wonderful person. I acknowledge taht given what the X really is, that may or may not be possible. So that’s a harder issue to argue. You like the kind of people you like. Just like you find attractive what you find attractive. I may think you’re wrong, but that’s irrelevant.

            Going back to the prom queen statement again, my point is that you have no idea whether they are culturally different or not. You are relying on a flawed stereotype that you have generated to make that judgement for you. Whether a girl is hotter in a t-shirt and jeans or dress and stockings is a personal view sure. But your rationales of culture just don’t work. Take George for instance. She is either interesting or not. The clothes she was wearing might make you think she is hot or less hot, but they don’t alter her culture at all. If you think she’s hot wearing a sweatshirt, that’s all well and good. Drool over her or whatever. She’s very smart and very fun, and you could talk to her as such when she was dressed that way. But saying that you’d assume she was too culturally different than you because she was wearing a lacy blouse basically just means you’ve missed out on the same smart and fun person and it pretty much just makes you an idiot for falling for a stereotype. It would be just as wrong to assume a girl was bad in bed because she wears conservative clothing, or that someone was socially inept because they liked computers and wore glasses, or assuming they were uneducated because they were black.

            Trust me, I know more about culture and popular consensus than most people. They are tied together almost hand in hand. Even your views on what you think is attractive are directly tied to that.

          • avatar
            October 21, 2004 at 4:14 am

            You can’t tell me that I’m wrong. I mentioned “learning” before to bring to the table that we learn over many experiences which appearances we can associate with which cultures and behaviors. You can’t tell me what my experiences are. Chicks in tshirts and jeans are more likely to be interesting for me to talk to than dolled-up glamour jobs. Sterotypes are a great and adaptive methods of organizing information, and it’s too bad that there’s so much political rhetoric thrown around knocking them.

            Depending on the environment, I can sometimes feel quite confident in assuming a black person’s education level. My university is in the ghetto. If I’m on campus, black people I see are probably undergrads or employees; in my buildings, they’re probably graduate students; if I walk off-campus, I know they didn’t go to college and may not have graduated highschool. You can’t tell me that I should look at a guy loitering in the ghetto and think “well, I can’t make assumptions based on stereotypes, that guy could be a doctor.”

            If I saw Jameel on the street, I would think: “transformers tattoos, or black trenchcoat with clan pin == geek (my kind of person).” Appearance denotes personality. In an office context where people have to conform to dress codes, the information is no longer useful, but your pictures of Ratha and George were not office context. For purposes of determining sexiness I assumed that their clothing choices were their preference.

            My closet is full of identical blue tshirts. I wear them with my blue jeans and my white socks.

            This is an interesting thread, and I’d post more, but I have a Learning and Motivation exam to cram for.

            I also hate makeup.

          • avatar
            October 21, 2004 at 9:05 am

            again, I want to make it clear that I’m not arguing that your opinion is wrong. You think T-shirts and jeans are attractive. Fine. Not saying you that you don’t actually think that, and in fact, I agree, sometimes jeans and t-shirts can be quite hot. Just other things can to.

            What I dispute is the how you use cultural theory to support your claim. Your claim doesn’t even really need support, its enough to just like something. People can agree or disagree as they see fit. With support, one can strengthen their claim, but in your case you actually weaken it.

            You’re sort of right about stereotypes. Stereotypes come into being through the averaging of characteristics across a particular subculture. The Latinos are feisty. The French are rude. Black men have large penises. etc. But they aren’t always true. I know Latinos who aren’t feisty at all. I know an extremely nice and sweet french girl. And I’m a black guy and… ok, sometimes the stereotypes don’t break down.

            Still, the purpose of stereotypes is to give commonground as a jumping off point in interaction. Sometimes, its positive. Sometimes negative. Often its unfortunate, but that’s part of the human condition. You’re right to assume that people learn based on prior experiences and adjust their mental model to match them, but you seem to hold more steadfast to those assumptions than is probably smart to do so. I can guarantee you that some of those black people in Oakland are college graduates. Jameel and I used to live in Oakland. I can guarantee you that George is just as interesting in her work clothes as she is the sweatshirt. (btw, I did specifically say that her clothes were for work, and even said she worked in a bank, so even your assumption about the function of the clothes was wrong to begin with). You make an assumption. But there’s no guarantee of accuracy, as such, you have great opportunity to miss out on interesting people. Jameel didn’t always have transformer tattoos. He doesn’t always wear a trench coat. Your assumptions based on your personal experiences may not be accurate.


          • avatar
            October 21, 2004 at 9:06 am

            In fact, they aren’t accurate. That’s the other problem with your argument. Lets say that you are only into geeky chicks. This may not be the smartest plan for seeking out relationships (and, you are probably actually more complex than that), but lets accept it as an postulate. For my definition of geek, I’m randomly picking the traits, “programs or services computers”, “plays videogames” “plays roleplaying games” “would call herself as a geek when asked.” Looking quickly at my friends list, there are about 67 women. Just guessing from what I know of each of them, I’d say 51 of them would probably identify themselves as geeks if you asked them. I’d say 34 of them make their living using computers. I’d say 31 of them like playing video games. I’d say 23 of them like RPGs. And 57 of them at least put some attention into following some fashion trend or another. For my tabulation I just used my best guesses, and if I wasn’t sure, I erred on the side of no. For the fashion question, I used the basis of “I’ve personally seen this person work to create a look other than “jeans and a t-shirt, on at least a semi-normal, non-work requirement basis” or “I know for a fact that this person is at least trying to look cute/sexy/interesting/whatever, at least in their own view with the way they dress.” Even then, I figure of the 10 I didn’t count as caring, most of them probably do, I just wasn’t sure. Nine women fell into all categories.

            So by your logic, you’re assuming that 57 of the 67 women are uninteresting because they must not be geeks, but in reality, with 50 of them you’d be wrong. My point here is that you’re assigning a stereotype based on your own personal learning experience as opposed to cultural norms, and personal learning, though a standard for shaping the human experience, is innately flawed due to lack of sampling size. I could just as easily say “All men named Barry are assholes because everyone I ever met with that name was.” but its not really a useful stereotype. Its too based on my flawed perception. I might also believe that “college graduates are generally more intelligent than high school dropouts.” Probably not true for every case, but probably a safer assumption to make. And society will likely back me up due to a naturally larger sampling size. Your opinion is closer to the Barry statement than it is to the graduates statement.

            Its like music. You’re welcome to like only experiemental techno from India. You’re welcome to think all other music is crap. You may come to that conclusion through any means. But not understanding that the majority of the rest of us like rock, hiphop or pop would just be ignorant. Saying why the specific sounds of Indian techno appeal to you is one thing. (your closet full of identical t-shirts) Explaining how all rock, hiphop and pop is vapid or devoid of real meaning because it lacks a sitar would be another (prom queen =useless and uninteresting). It doesn’t show musical intelligence, or even validate tastes, it only shows a lack of understanding about diversity in music and culture (or a lack of understanding about women, and in particular prom queens)

          • avatar
            October 21, 2004 at 3:44 pm

            I propose a massive cultural/demographic/consumer/personality database that will tell me exactly how to identify people I want to talk to or avoid based on appearance. It can perform big factor analyses. Until such a thing happens, the advice from your cognitive structures is no better than mine, and the analysis of your friends list is no better than my analysis of my life.

            And your music analogy doesn’t exactly apply because I’m not saying that no one can like prom queens, I’m just saying that I don’t. You can listen to all the rock you want, and I’ll stick to my indian techno. To me, the before picture is sexier.

          • avatar
            October 21, 2004 at 9:37 pm

            no my sampling is not scientific. Not by any means. Its not garunteed to be any better than your analysis of your own life. But see, I’m not claiming that I can accurately predict people. My entire premise is that you can’t. You’re the one claiming that you can. And you’re right, my way was flawed. Again, just like yours. Really though, I think I can do a pretty good job of making those judgements. I spend a lot of time working on that sort of thing. I went to school for that sort of thing. I make assumptions on information based on first impressions all the time. And even I am wrong sometimes. Again, that’s the point.

            I suppose if you really want, I could post a survey, but likely you’ll still get what you’d consider flawed results. My sampling group is simply wrong. It is artificially skewed to match my views because basically, that’s how people became friends of mine in the first place.

            That said, again, you are making the mistake by assuming there is some basic formula that you can use to make judgements of people. You can’t. Even with all the information in the world, you’d still be falliable. No one is perfect. Not even me (I’m just damn close). Only Jay-Z never makes mistakes.

            And my analogy is perfect.You seem to be under the impression that I am trying to make you like the outfits that I chose. I am not. I am not trying to make you like the rock music. I am trying to get you to acknowledge that your love of the indian techno has no bearing whatsoever on the ability or talen of the rock musician. Your assumptions of the black people in your neighborhood has no bearing on their education. Your preference to the jeans and t-shirt has no bearing on the personality of the girl wearing the prom dress.

            If you’d simply said “I like women who wear jeans, I think its sexy” I would have said fine. But you insist on trying to link that to some aspect of personality or intelligence or general personality, and simply stated, it just doesn’t exist. Its a fallacy that geeks use to pretend that they are better than other people. If you say “Girls in T-shirts make me horny” or “green dresses are ugly” that’s all well and good but instead you try to turn it into something deeper or metaphysical so that they don’t feel like they’re shallow. Its not just geeks that do this. Everyone does this. In cultural studies, its called demonizing the Other. The Other can be anything. Black people are strong and dumb. Jews are smart and greedy. Gays are promiscuous and unreligious. Skinny white boys with glasses are smart and unatheletic. But they aren’t always true. These aren’t innate truths. In fact, much of the truth of these ideas comes through a self-fulfilling prophecy due to the demonization. I can give you tons of books and articles on the subject. Sometimes a skinny white boy with glasses is just malnourished and myopic.

            You have preferences. That’s fine. But really, if you believe that they mean something deeper than just be preferences you’re either hurting yourself or just ignorant. Possibly both. I mean that in the best possible way.

          • avatar
            October 22, 2004 at 6:33 pm

            Some point-by-points:

            * Given all information, perfect decisions can be made. Attaining all information is impossible (or would take forever, as I said earlier and you misinterpreted), so all decisions that we make are imperfect. You write as though I said somewhere that I make perfect decisions with little information. I never claimed that. I said that I make as-good-as-I-can decisions with available information.

            * I did originally just say “I like the before picture better.” You did not just say “fine.” You asked for a reason. NTB.

            * Okay, I acknowledge that my preference for techno does not affect the talent of a rock musician. That is obvious. I don’t even understand what you’re arguing there.

            * That’s the second time you brought up some educational background you have. That will not affect the weight I give your argument. I’m getting a doctorate in psychology, among other things, and I’m proposing a presentation to the APA on the mechanics of culture in relationships. Most of what I’ve done for a long time has involved researching cognitive biases and culture. Due to time and motivation, I didn’t explain my preference as completely as possible from psychodynamic, evolutionary, social, cognitive, developmental, and personality perspectives. Excuse me.

            You seem to separate preferences from any explanation. I didn’t “turn [my] preferences into something deeper and metaphysical.” I briefly touched upon the probable reason that I have the preference that I do, as requested. Then you told me that my reason was wrong, which is absurd because you don’t know me.

            * Your “Demonizing the Other” reference seems a little out of place. Your examples are more the results of the media or other external indoctrination. My feelings are based on my personal experiences and are, as you have pointed out in other posts, often contrary to popular concensus. Even adding in another statement you made on the possibility of forming schemas in intentional opposition to the mainstream, that still completely provides a valid reason for the formation of a preference. You talk of self-fullfilling prophesy (I don’t like prom queens, therefor when I talk to them I dislike whatever they present) which is fine! That’s a reasonable explanation! You can’t tell me that that makes me ignorant because that’s how EVERYONE works. You admit that you make judgement on first impressions and are sometimes wrong, and I already admitted that, too. I don’t understand what you think I said that causes you to write so much stuff that half the time agrees with me and half the time seems hypocritical.

            This thread belongs on DPB.

          • avatar
            October 21, 2004 at 3:31 pm

            Dude, I don’t live in Oakland. I go to school in Chester, PA. Various clinical research projects by my collegues and professors have shown that the people here do not go to college, nor even leave Chester. It has the worst school district in the state.

            More importantly, my point was that evaluations can be made with a high probability of accuracy when based on appearance and context. Even in the absense of context, appearance becomes the only source of information, and should be used. Otherwise, no one would ever be able to make a judgement about anything because we would have to “there’s still some information about it that I don’t have” forever.

            Sometimes we will make mistakes, sure. If I saw Ratha with makeup and clothes from the GAP, I wouldn’t start a conversation with her, and I’d miss out. But the system works most of the time, and is more efficient than the alternative.

          • avatar
            October 21, 2004 at 9:11 pm

            My apologies on the wrong assumption of where you lived and went to school. Of course, if nothing else that proves how wrong assumptions can be. As for the people of Chester, you admit there that you aren’t judging based on appearance. You are judging based on other research. Additional information. Their appearance is a red herring.

            How do you not have forever. Is your time really that important? In that high demand. If it is, then you really shouldn’t b e wasting it dealing with people or relationships in the first place.

            The problem is you have no proof or test that “the system works.” The system is based upon your own beliefs and judged by the very same. If you would be wrong to judge Ratha, how do you know you haven’t misjudged countless other people who you haven’t invested time in because of their appearance. Maybe you haven’t misjudged them, but you have no actual information with which to support that claim because in doing so you’d immediately invalidate your basic premise.

          • avatar
            October 22, 2004 at 6:52 pm

            At the risk of sounding offensive (probably too late), I think that your experience as an extremely astereotypical black man causes you to strongly object to anyone who dares let their behavior be affected by stereotypes. You hate having people treat you certain ways because of their schemas of black men, so my behavior of avoiding prom queens in favor of grungie chicks IN THE ABSENSE OF OTHER INFORMATION is to be reviled and antagonized. You want those old white ladies who reach for their mace to get to know you before they react to you, so you want me to get to know prom queens before I decide to not talk to them. I understand that my experiences are nowhere near the extent of yours, but I’ve felt some hurt when women cringe from me or run across the street at night just because of my appearance.

            I will reiterate that those situations are more related to the bastardly, sensationalistic media and generations of ignorant bigots indoctrinating the gullible, whereas my stereotypes have been developed from my numerous first-hand interactions. Yes, they’re still imperfect, but they’re more efficient than the alternative, which is to get the full biography of everyone I ever see.

            Damn, I hate even feeling like something I said sounded psychodynamic. I have to critique some empirical research as penance.

          • avatar
            October 21, 2004 at 9:38 pm

            also… the GAP? Please! I am offended.

        • avatar
          October 20, 2004 at 12:47 pm


          you’re going to ruin girls for the rest of us!


          • avatar
            October 20, 2004 at 12:52 pm

            Re: dude…

            yeah, that too…


          • avatar
            October 21, 2004 at 6:24 am

            Re: dude…

            I heart shiima.

            and I also have 8,000 years of education in cultural theory.

            which says I can bake cookies or do other womanly (or manly) “tasks” in a slip and bondage bracelets, and nothing else, should I want to do so.

            {sticks out tongue}

          • avatar
            October 21, 2004 at 6:29 am

            Re: dude…

            dammit! you’ve stayed over our house like at least a dozen times this year and not once have you done any baking in a slip and bondage bracelets. What’s the deal, yo?

            also… 8000 years of cultural theory education rules… it makes us better than everyone else. Never forget that. 🙂

        • avatar
          October 20, 2004 at 5:42 pm

          I bet that I judge women by how they dress, and if a women places higher regard on looking conventionally eye-candyish rather than dressing efficiently for tasks, I assume that she is not the type of women I want to spend any time with.

          Efficiency is a mark of terrorists. Also, practicality sucks. If you let clothes be in the way of what you’re doing, regardless of practicality, I mock your resourcefulness.

          Seriously though, all those women you don’t want to spend time with? Lots of other people anxiously waiting…

          • avatar
            October 21, 2004 at 4:40 am

            Or in other words… “It is better to look good than to feel good because when you look good and everyone is watching only then will you really and truly start to feel good so to look good is to feel good and I look MARVELOUS!!!”

            and about the second point… Yes, absolutely. I often find it funny when people, especially geeks or other alternative types tend to have an active disdain for all things normal. Its as though to say, “the world disproves of me, so I will more actively disprove of them. HA HA!” That’s all well and good, but sometimes you have to consider that if the vast majority of the world feel one thing is attractive, well, maybe there’s something to it afterall. If you still reject it, no harm no foul. As you say, the rest of us will be more than happy to be attracted to it without you.

          • avatar
            October 22, 2004 at 7:03 pm

            It doesn’t always end that way. If more people are attracted to something than there is of it, competition is higher. I’m quite happy with the available selection of unconventionally attractive (full-framed, not usually represented in magazines or on television) women while other guys hold out for the supermodels.

            Your statement is pretty harsh. What if the vast majority of the world feels that you are unattractive? (yeah, well, just use your imagination) Would you still like to think “maybe there is something to it?”

  5. avatar
    October 18, 2004 at 6:18 pm

    hee hee. i wasn’t posing very well, and hair was completely scruffy. i totally forgot my black boots for this escapade, which is what i intend to wear with these outfits.

    mav, we do need to go back for tights for under the skirt and boots.

    the corduroy pants-with-no-legs was really comfy… wish we could have found a full-length one.

    note to viewers, mav was just like ‘snap’ ‘snap’ ‘snap’ since we had to go watch the football game. yay, steelers.

    i like ratha look #2 and #4 best… those boots are SO stompy.

    lots o’ fun.

    • avatar
      October 18, 2004 at 8:27 pm

      hey, any time you want to go back just let me know. There’s no football game next week.

  6. avatar
    October 18, 2004 at 6:45 pm

    I love your impression of what the clothes are “saying”.

    Every so often I wish I lived closer to where you are. heh.

    Then I remember, you are in Pittsburg.

    • avatar
      October 18, 2004 at 8:28 pm

      the analysis or the parts where I actually had words that the clothes were saying?

      Hey, Pittsburgh isn’t all that bad. Its even fun sometimes. And best of all, I am here!

  7. avatar
    October 19, 2004 at 2:51 pm

    Thanks for the pictures and the post-results narration. I learned a lot and had fun too.

    George’s lacy top was, I think, my favorite of her outfits, but they all look very good. I’m not sure how I feel about the teal camisole on me – maybe it’s too long, or maybe it needs to go with tighter, less-long jeans, but I definitely think the necklace is too much. I’ll play with it and see what happens.

    • avatar
      October 19, 2004 at 3:44 pm

      well, its intended to go with tighter jeans, but I actually like the look with the loose jeans. It seems more carefree. Kind of casually sexy. It sort of pushes the sk8r grrl look I was talking about when you first mentioned wanting to go shopping. If the stereotypical hottie sk8r girl outfit is baggy cargo pants hanging off the hips, visible thong straps rising above the hips, and 3 sizes too small babydoll tshirt or wifebeater tanktop, then this is kind of the sk8r grrl who needed to dress up a little bit to go on a date or to a party. She certainly wasn’t going to go through the effort to wear a real dress!


      the next steps up would be the dress that Avril has on the inside of her album cover, but that would be for special occasions. (and in your case, probably way too much — its just too rock star)

      (by the way, the stereotypical sk8r grrl look that I just described would be fine for you as well. As you said, feel free to experiment)

    • avatar
      October 19, 2004 at 4:03 pm

      i actually like that dress/shirt a lot, but i agree with you about the length. i’d shorten it if i were you, and i also think it might do better without the necklace. or, if you want jewelry, with something a little less delicate. hey, if you took some of the fabric out of the dress, you could make like a neck or wrist ornament out of that…just a thought.

      • avatar
        October 20, 2004 at 5:15 am

        interesting take, I still don’t think I’d shorten it though. I think I may agree with you on the necklace. Putting something on the wrist might also be good. Any opinions on the oither outfits? What about George’s?

        • avatar
          October 20, 2004 at 5:01 pm

          i like all of ratha’s outfits. strangely enough, one of my favorite touches is the boots. are they new also? especially with the green laces they add a sort of quirkiness that really helps (especially with the middle outfit which would probably be too, umm, i don’t know the exact right description, maybe preppy? for my taste without them)

          i like george’s outfit with the jacket and pants a lot, that’s a nice jacket. it’s harder to tell with the first two outfits because they seem to be going for a sort of polished look which is kind of hard to see properly with the socks and casual photos etc. for whatever it’s worth though, i agree with your suggestions of a long skirt with the first shirt combo and tall brown boots with the second outfit.

          • avatar
            October 20, 2004 at 5:12 pm

            no, she had the boots already. I also think the quirkiness of the green laces really adds something. An extra bit of indivuality to break up the… well, I don’t know that I would have called it preppiness, but yeah that. I still wish the fourth outfit had bigger combat boots or something though.

            Yeah, with george’s outfits the right skirt and boots to finish off those looks would definitely go a long way. Work clothes are just challenging. Hopefully someday she’ll me take her out for some stuff that’s a little more fun.

  8. avatar
    October 19, 2004 at 2:52 pm

    Oh yeah, and the skirt is corduroy, not denim, which is another reason it appealed to me (unusual material).

    • avatar
      October 19, 2004 at 3:45 pm

      yeah, I remember now… In any case, it works for you.

  9. avatar
    October 20, 2004 at 5:23 pm

    I think Ratha and George look very cute in the before pics. As for the afters, I like the top in George pic #1 but keep imagining it with a long skirt. I like long skirts. I love the corderoy skirt, too, even if it’s not long :). And I love the jacket in George pic #3, very form-fitting and feminine. Not sure I like it with the camisole, though, may have to do with too many sharp angles with the v-neck. I’d pair it with something like a scoop neck shirt instead to soften the look. I like the last George pic outfit, and she looks so happy and comfy in it. Very good work outfit.

    I like the Ratha #1, beautiful color and pretty and shiny, but my first thought was taking a pair of scissors to the top and cutting the top to just below the beltline. I love the last look, wouldn’t change a thing. Pic #2 brings back memories of the 80’s, but opening the shirt helps bring it into the present. I love the pants. I think they’d look great with the brown t-shirt, too. And very cool boots (jealous…).

    • avatar
      October 20, 2004 at 5:30 pm

      what is with all of you people and wanting to cut off the camisole. I think the long camisole is awesome.

      As I’ve said elsewhere I do agree on the long skirt comment. Hopefully George is still reading this thread and the brainwashing will sink in.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.