<p>"MOB and I discussed dresses and colors – I went with blue, she went with jewel-toned purple. She changed to a blue dress during the reception. "</p>
<p>According to some here, since the MOB already had her first perfectly lovely dress for the occasion, changing into a second dress was “materialistic and superficial.” Or maybe that’s only if the second dress cost above $400. The least MOB could do is leave the price tag on, sheesh. </p>
<p>Back to repeating dresses. I actually like this idea a whole lot, but I grew up with extremely stylish women, for whom this wasn’t any kind of big deal.</p>
<p>In 1975 my aunt (from a southern, rural community) went to NYC where her daughter was living and planning her wedding. She bought a lot of clothes and shoes. It is difficult to comprehend what a treat this was for her in the days before internet access to clothes. One outfit stands out in my mind: a navy silk dress with a subtle sailor collar. It was a beautiful outfit on her and the height of style. It wasn’t to wear to the wedding but to the rehearsal dinner. I saw her in it at two other rehearsal dinners, the last one in 1986 where it looked just as appropriate as in 1975. Probably she wore it to more. She was one of the best dressed women I ever knew and she pretty much shopped and bought non-stop but that dress was too good for a one-time or one-season outing.</p>
<p>We have an annual family reunion. I get there probably half the time. A much older cousin has a beautiful cotton polka dot dress that I first saw her in sometime in the 70s. It was the absolutely perfect dress for that particular event which is held outside, in the yard of an ancient church. Dressy, but not too dressy for the occasion, cool, and comfortable. I am not sure I ever saw her wear a different dress to that reunion, so maybe she acquired it for that purpose? It’s possible the years I didn’t attend just happened to be the ones she wore something else. A couple of years ago, her daughter wore the dress to the reunion. She had just had a baby. I can interpret this in about a dozen ways but I really enjoyed seeing the dress on the daughter!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for making me almost spit out my morning coffee! </p>
<p>I don’t get why the link to the Red Carpet show w lots of celebs who have tons of disposable income and designers on standby. The average woman who is not into fashion and is just going off the rack at Nordstrom isn’t coming up with that kind of dress anyway. </p>
<p>Yeah, I was thinking that too. It’s just harder to find photos of “regular” fashion from past years on the internet, I’m guessing.</p>
<p>When I say I can tell a lot about a person by how they dress, it is not about how wealthy they are. In your friend’s case, she is letting people know that she is not a professional and she is low key. Someone can be low key and can still pay attention to detail (ironed shirt, clean shoes or matching accessories). Someone can wear very expensive clothes, but forget to get the dirt off their shoes or carries a handbag which is not appropriate with the outfit. This maybe too much of generalization…People who feel good about themselves (whether they are thin or over weight) tend not to wear over sized clothes to hide their body. They will shop for clothes to accentuate their looks.</p>
<p>The NYC street clothes were deliberately rumpled and the shoes were oldish hiking gear. Can you still “read” her? I think I’m pretty good at this sort of thing, but I couldn’t.
: )</p>
<p>adding: as far as I can tell she has given up carrying a handbag at all because they are too “messagey” at this point in time. </p>
<p>I am not reading everyone I see on the street (why would I do that?), only people I come into contact with.</p>
<p>Well, I’ve been looking at everyone’s clothes all the time and trying to analyze them my entire life. I’ve had a lot of time to think it all over, and the older I get, the less confident I am of being able to determine much at all by personal presentation and don’t count on being able to tell anything at all at this point in time.</p>
<p>I think I have gotten better.</p>
<p>: )</p>
<p>No one has ever said on this thread that one shouldn’t wear a dress / special occasion outfit multiple times. Hence the LBD, hence alh’s relatives’ outfits, hence every go-to outfits in our closets. (Well, I suspect some don’t have go-to outfits.). This q came up precisely because the MOG is in a different position than the average guest. Regardless of whether she’s footing the bill, she’s a hostess of sorts. People expect a MOB/MOG to put a little more thought into the occasion than a “regular” guest. </p>
<p>And CF, why are you challenging BB to prove to you the differences that render something out of date? It’s clear that to you, clothing is just functional. That’s fine. But you’re not going to care about the subtleties anyway</p>
<p>I mean, Consolation will go on about the superiority of Caillebaut chocolate and how Hershey’s is swill for the unwashed masses and I’m like - hmm, I’m pretty happy with my Hershey’s over here. The subtleties of various fine chocolates where she sees real, noticeable meaningful differences are lost on me. So be it.<br>
(I say this with full affection, Consolation!) </p>
<p>^Right—it’s all taste-based opinion. On the other hand, the differences between bikes, as CF has discussed, is difference in functionality–not opinions on functionality. (Equivalence would be saying that a particular bike didn’t “look right” for that particular use, not that it didnt function correctly.) So a (in some opinions) “dated” dress still functions the same way; it just would, apparently, bring disapproval from some beholders because of appearance.</p>
<p>(at this point, I’m not even trying to argue the main point; I spend my life dueling with false analogies and equivalences in student papers, so they irk me.)</p>
<p>I think it is a testament to how important dress is to us (even those of us who don’t really care about it) that we are now on post #254.</p>
<p>uh oh - I better go count up my posts.</p>
<p>Speaking of things that we thought were DEFINITELY out of style forever…</p>
<p><a href=“The Scrunchie Grows Up - The New York Times”>The Scrunchie Grows Up - The New York Times;
<p>SCRUNCHIES are back!</p>
<p>Wouldn’t a pair of pants and a t shirt offer the same functionality as our hypothetical dated dress? They cover private areas and keep you warm. But you wouldn’t say that pants and a t shirt are the equivalent of our dated dress, which says that there IS some element of style inherent in the “function” you want the dress to perform. </p>
<p>IOW, the function of a bike is to carry the rider safely without breaking down; the function of a (MOG) dress is to look reasonably flattering and pleasing to the eye. So a MOG dress that doesn’t do that (is garish, overly dated, too tight fitting, Inappropriately casual or formal for the setting, etc) “fails” its function much as the bike whose chain keeps slipping fails its function. </p>
<p>This is a silly hypothetical, but if the OP had said, I’ve gained 40 pounds since I last wore it but I can still fit in the dress if I hold my breath and stuff myself in, people would say no - get another dress that flatters you more. Right? Because being flattering and pleasing to the eye is part of the “requirement” for the dress. </p>
<p>Yes, the MOG is the hostess for her friends and family who are attending the wedding. That doesn’t, ipso facto, mean the MOG has to get a new dress for this wedding. If the OP has a dress she’s worn to her other child’s wedding and it is one that flatters her and makes her feel great about herself, then I see no problem wearing the dress again. I think she could change-up her accessories/hair style, but I imagine many of the OP’s friends and family won’t remember that she wore the same dress. Sure, some folks might, but I’m willing to bet that those people are not in the majority. Just as most people can’t tell the difference between great chocolate and run-of-the-mill chocolate, most people don’t pay that much attention to clothes. They can tell if someone looks good in something, but they don’t remember the particulars.</p>
<p>My only concern would be whether the OP’s son and future DIL would somehow feel slighted that she wore the same dress and interpret it as meaning she didn’t care enough to buy a new dress. I think the OP should talk to her son and future DIL and test the waters, so to speak. </p>
<p>Some people say they don’t care about fashion. I think, however, there is a difference between - </p>
<p>I genuinely don’t care, as long as it covers my body and is appropriate to the situation it’s good enough for me </p>
<p>And </p>
<p>I wish I could be better at this, but it’s a skill that eludes me / I haven’t practiced / I don’t feel confident in my ability to put it all together</p>
<p>It seems to me the former just genuinely wouldn’t care what a self-appointed “fashionista” might think.
But when you start getting all worked up over “what the fashionistas might think” (even though any judgments are being kept to themselves), it makes me think said person might be in group two. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The difference is that the “appropriate function” of the dress is subjective. Garish to one person is uplifting and colorful to another. The bike either operates or it doesn’t.</p>