Posts Tagged ‘fashion’

Wardrobe Advice for big boned, tall women (update: June 30, 2010)

Wednesday, June 30th, 2010

There’s a host of great books out there on how to dress in a way that flatters your figure. An average t* girl is inevitably taller and larger than an average girl. No matter how you cut it, there’s only a small percentage of us who are lucky enough to be blessed with small frame genes. If you don’t believe me, just try standing next to a genetic girl the next time you get your picture taken. Even if both girls are of identical height, most of the time, the biological girl will have the smaller head, the smaller hands, the narrower shoulders. No matter how you want to flatter yourself in how FABU you are, the truth is proportion is essentially math. And numbers don’t lie.

But fear not. I’ve always advised girls NOT to look at other hot girls (sorry, but what society considers hot, leans towards non-Amazonian girls). The great mistake is that if you ape what genetic women dress to look good, you will fail. Most of us simply don’t have the bone structure. I know it hurts, but it’s best to work with what cha got. Instead, look to larger-frame women and celebs in the media- people with bodies closer to ours, and learn from their style. After all, they have disposable funds to pay wardrobe professionals for their advice. They are usually in the public eye, so they always have to look great. So here are my few picks.

REMEMBER: We all know horizontal broadens, while verticals heightens. The solution to de-emphasizing these traits is a diagonal line, a compromise between the two. Look at the pictures below and notice the presence of diagonals and triangles in the women’s outfits.


Brenda Strong (height: 6’0″)
You know her as the O-Henry Heiress from Seinfeld (“if the bra doesn’t fit, you must acquit!”), and the saccharine narrator from Desperate Housewives. If there’s ever someone that challenges the traditional proportion of the standard female size, look no further. She does show up on several flashbacks in Desperate Housewives. And even though she dwarfs Eva Longoria, Strong is a great example of how utilizing other “tools” (voice, facial expresion, carriage, posture, warmth) will create a feminine aura.

Nicole Kidman (height: 5’10 1/2)
Although this BMX Bandit had some help from modern plastics, she’ still a great model for learning what works and what doesn’t. I wouldn’t look at the high profile movies. Instead I recommend films where she wears mostly daily clothing. ( Bewitched , Stepford Wives , To Die For )


Michelle Obama (height: 5’10)
The first lady definitely has the broad shoulders to tackle the Commander-in-Chief if circumstances deem it necessary. The bateau neckline (the ones that go horizontal across the front shoulders) on her formal little black dress just makes the shoulders stretch to infinity. We all love Audrey Hepburn, but she barely pulls it off in Breakfast At Tiffany’s. Audrey is 5’7″ and was considered “large” in her ballet classes in her youth. The compromise above is just right, though not formal, of course.


Famke Janssen (height: 5’11″)
Yes, she almost killed Bond with her crushing thighs, but she’s gone off to many better things afterward. Janssen, being on Nip/Tuck is often in the public eye. Her diagonal lines in dress in the cardinal rule for de-emphasizing width (shoulders), while minimizing height.


Taylor Swift (height: 5’11″)
I still remember questioning here on d332 how come this adorable country-pop singer did not make it onto Maxim’s hottie list some 3 years ago. Swift is always on the red carpet and sometimes in the tabloids. So watch for how she expertly diminishes her size with an A-line dress, understatement, and of course, sweetheart charm.


Marcia Cross (height: 5’9″ or 5’10″)
Marcia Cross’s Bree Van Der Kamp is tv’s modern Stepford Wife. Despite Republican leanings and NRA affiliation, her character is really the only nice person on the show. Watch it for expert preppy outfits and wasp chic (they’ve always been big-boned anyway).


Stacy Keibler (height: 5’11″)
I first saw Miss Hancock do her thing on WWF Wrestling. I put this here to show you how tall girls can still pull off the standard “sissy” outfits successfully. But then again, if your audience consists of acne-covered teen boys whose ambition in life is to bust a mate over a folding table, then you can pretty much wear a Pop-Tart and still get a rise.


Crossdressers: Imitation, Insurgence, Invention, and Ignorance? (update: March 18, 2010)

Thursday, March 18th, 2010

I don’t want to limit this entry to transgender / crossdresser girls beacause I think it applies across the board to almost every group and almost every social situation an individual finds him or herself in. What is society and culture anyway? As far as I’m concern, most of it falls in or between imitation, insurgence, invention, or for lack of a better “i,” ignorance.

A successful imitation results in uniformity, or conformity. Its rewards is the lowest amount of friction: there’s no judgment from your peers. Well, there is…it’s just that you’ll never hear it. Insurgence, or rebellion…is richly tied to imitation. Imitation follows the lead, rebellion needs a lead to dissent from. I will always remember walking around the Halstead area in Chicago- where many of the gay dance clubs reside – and seeing a drunk tranny who had been ejected from a bar, wailing, “they just don’t understand! I’m making a statement!”

If she hadn’t been that drunk, I would have asked what that statement was. There’s so many ideas she could be rebelling against, it was virtually impossible to figure out which ones they were. Without something to rebel against, the definition of rebellion would cease to exist.

On the other end, there’s the long admired Invention. For hundreds of years, among genetic women, trendsetters who define their personal, timeless look apart from the slavish brand-dropping fashionista sheep, have garnered nothing but adulation from all sides.

So what of ignorance? Ignorance is simply not knowing better.

Crossdressers’ wardrobe have always fascinated me, because it’s a combination of imitation, rebellion, ignorance, powered by an extreme narcissism, leading to the invention of an entirely new visual style. In glossing over an imitation of superficial femininity, speeding straight towards self-satisfaction, these girls end up creating a new look. You could call it kitsch, nauseating, trashy, plain bad….but I’m willing to bet you if Andre Leon Talley or Anna Wintour raved about shiny black polyester blouses over fishnets terminating in a shiny white bead sequin heels WITH frilly ruffle anklet socks, Paris, Rihanna, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Howard Stern will be all over it faster than an Asian woman on a Louis Vuitton handbag.

I can’t lay claim to anything of such audacious creativity. I’m probably a boring mix of imitation and ignorance. I just don’t care what the current trend is any more. My holy grail in fashion is the observation Rhett Butler uttered in Gone with The Wind: “You don’t know what freedom is until you’ve lost your reputation.” Upon entering any apparel store, my eyes are immediately attracted towards the dowdiest homely outfit collecting dust bunnies in a neglected corner. If there’s an ounce of rebellion in my body, it would be against the hipness of appearing unhip. Remember, a double negative that makes us all delightfully positive!

Fashion Advice for Tgirls (FAT) vol. 1: Self-Censorship and Necklines (update: Feb 1, 2010)

Monday, February 1st, 2010

peter pan collar cap sleeves empire neckline halter

I’m probably the last person anyone should come to for fashion advice. However, just as great musicians may not necessarily make great teachers, it follows that capable observers don’t need to be passing experts. I’m not trying to tell anyone what to wear: it’s only observations and opinions, so take it with a grain of salt, and hopefully you can get something out of my inquiries.

I don’t have much contact with trans girls, and I tend to veer away from trans discussion groups: I guess I just shy away from categories. I’m not sure if other girls do this, but I practice self-censorship on a daily basis. On my lesser days, I can take a glance at the mirror and know I’m not fit to be out in public. Whether it’s a disagreeably flabby limb, a slight bulge, an unforgiving reading at the weighing machine, a saggy butt, or as is most likely the case all of the above, I make a judgment call on the spot.

That goes with clothing, accessories, and makeup as well. I have tearfully had to part with the idea of purchasing certain outfits or pumps because realistically, it simply did NOT fit my body type. I love cap sleeves and Sabrina necklines, but it simply does not work with my shoulders. Another example, any heels that are over 1 inch is an automatic discard for me. Yes, I know: it makes your legs look nicer. But looking like a giraffe is not complimentary to your overall silhouette. Besides, the types of apparel I wear these days cover up so much, Islamic women in Burkas have been known to say “dude, show a bit of skin for Hefner’s (IHOP) sake!” when I walk on by. And who needs to show those off (or anything for that matter) anyway?

If I feel I could get away with a particular item of clothing (if only I was thinner)….I’d purchase it and put it in storage, absolutely refusing to wear it until I lose 15 lbs or more. Under no circumstances will I allow myself or any member of the poor innocent public to see me in an ill-fitting dress that is wholly unflattering to my body type. Some things are simply not meant to go together. Sabrina-necklines are deadly for people who have broad shoulders. Bare-arms are a no no for girls who have the guns of Larry the Cable Guy. Cap-sleeves should be illegal for anyone over 100 lbs. Shiny clothing should be just outlawed altogether.

I often buy clothes in the “right” size, regardless of whether I can or cannot fit into them at the moment. What is the meaning of “right.” Well, the easiest way to illustrate the concept of “right size” is the superlow, hip-hugger, low rider jeans. Now we all implicitly know who should be wearing it: skinny young teens with a good flat stomach. Why they made these jeans in size 28W is anyone’s guess. The New England Journal of Medicine has reported more cases of BMT (blindness from muffin tops) than masturbation. I could go into classical / baroque proportions with body parts divisible by the number of one’s hand size, but you get the idea. If I get to the “right” weight to get into the item in question, then yay. If not, then it gets relegated to the museum of coveted objects in one of my rooms.

Unfortunately, in a consumer-driven culture, whatever sells is whatever gets put on the shelves. Consideration has been given only to the king and his new clothes, none to his reticent subjects. Luckily, with a pinch of criticism and honesty, we can all arrive at an innate sense of proportion. If that doesn’t work, there’s always ample advice online and in the books.

To begin my new series on fashion advice particularly geared towards women of trans* proportions, here is a tip on necklines. Check out this site on which neckline is and isn’t flattering to your body type.

Guide To Necklines and body types


Haute Couture’s Diffusion & pyramid marketing schemes, and Swedish Furniture made in Mexico (update: Jan 15, 2010)

Friday, January 15th, 2010


When Kanye West’s Auto-Tune malfunctions in the studio, he resorts to the next best thing: wearing Cher’s Uninhibited.

I was at that rat’s maze some of you know as Ikea. Normally I go there to play “gay couples vs. mail order brides,” tallying up which group has a higher head count before my visit is up. I actually like Ikea’s stuff. Snobs may poo-poo it as disposable furniture, but that is precisely the charm of it. Who wants to live with the same furniture forever unless is it’s an authentic Shaker dresser? Ikea gives you the living space of the season, and it’s affordable enough to toss if you wake up one morning on the wrong side of bed and hit your head on that armoire.

Modern high fashion, another concept that changes with every season, by contrast, is pure smoke and mirrors. That’s why I roll eyeballs and muffle a laugh when I hear our girls go ga-ga over brand labels and furiously name-dropping designers as if being “associated” with those names is a validation ticket to more woman. It’s no different than Asian women purchasing luxury items as simulacrum for an identity.

I tried valiantly to remember a tv documentary I saw almost twenty years ago. It was an incisive and critical look at the fashion industry. This was just at the nascent stages of supermodel worship, so most of the program concentrated on the nuts-and-bolts of fashion marketing. My memory failing me, I dragged out my trusty old Sony Betamax, plugged it in, and who would have known! That very videocassette is still in the player. It is Gina and Jeremy Newson’s The Look (1992) produced by Janet Street-Porter for BBC-2. It’s a fantastic, eye-opening program. I was surprised you can’t even find it mentioned online. When I typed in “fashion industry”+”documentary”+critical, all that turned up were more supermodel infatuation films. I guess people just can’t handle the truth.

Among some of the gems discussed in the program is the notion of seating at a fashion show. Celebrities and magazine editors jockey for the most prestigious front row seats, but they are also the worst seats in the house. All the photographers stand in front of you and you see nothing. But it’s important to be seen in those seats. What’s more, if you’re a magazine fashion writer and you say one bad word about a collection, you won’t be invited back the next show. So in order to give us fashion advice, these editors who crave the most prominent seats have to brown-nose the designers just so they’ll be invited back another season. But in order to get that invite, they can’t say a critical word about the collection. And we’re taking fashion advice from these tastemakers? Isn’t that a conflict of interest?

The concept of diffusion is the most fascinating item for me. A collection showcases a dress for $30,000 on a runway. 6 people (mostly nouveau riche ladies of middle eastern oil tycoons alongside wives of junk bond dealers) can afford it. The label gets brought down a notch to a $3000-$5000 dress and now hundreds of people who want to purchase the simulacra of taste and breeding hand their credit cards over. The designer adds a consumer line to their collection (Emporio Armani, Armani Exchange, DKNY, Lauren, Brooks Brothers 346) and the washed masses rush in to drop $200 -$400 for a simple sweater. Most of the time, the designer themselves don’t even have ANYTHING to do with making the clothes at this level. They merely sell the licensing rights to their name, and some no name clothier from Thailand slaps the purchased logo onto their handiwork and mark it up by 500%. (This aren’t the knockoffs, it’s the *cough* real thing that then gets shipped to U.S. Stores as the genuine brand item.) You wait and you wait for that sale at Macy’s (which comes around approximately every 12 hours). And finally for those who simply need to feel rich and look like Linda Evangelista (oh alright, Gisele Bundchen for you Ugg Boots wearing embryonic fashionistas), they drop what’s left of their week’s pay on a bottle of Eau de Parfum. (Chanel No.5: Total cost of ingredients $3, packaging: $6, Administration $8. Advertising $8. Final price: $62..00 in 1992)

Where do I fit in in this absurdist pyramid? I’d have to say I’ll be at the Goodwill / Oxfam with my trusty measuring tape. And oh can I pick them! My togs are so fetch, when I sashay pass old biddies in Philly, they rise from their wheelchairs in pilled-cardigans grumbling “oh no she didn’t!”

To that I say, “if you think I look antiquated now, wait till you see what I have in store for next season! Grandmama, Please!”