clouded leopard.

How do you all feel about these Neurotica thigh highs from pixie market? They're sold out now, but I nabbed a pair just in time. Now I'm not sure how to wear them or if I even like them, for that matter. I'm so glad the model is giving me some styling suggestions with her black underwear/no pants ensemble. I'm gonna try that first!

dum dum da dum....

Speaking of weddings, I'm going to one! This guy I know from high school is getting married in Charleston, South Carolina this September and the wedding should be gorgeous. The thing is, I'm a little nervous because he's extremely conservative and went to the Citadel (military college). Everyone there will practically be dressed in "McCain in '08" gear and, as expected, lots of military people are attending. I have enough trouble getting along with civilian Republicans, but my exact polar opposite is the dreaded military Republican. I have no doubt I'll stick out like a sore thumb.

I'm still ridiculously excited. I hope it's really ostentatious. I also feel old. The couple registered at Crate & Barrel for gifts. My mom shops there. Ohhhh yuppies! If I married Justin, our registry would be at Toys "R" Us (for him), and I'd just request some cold hard cash. That and puppies.

This guy, Andrew, the -- oh my god we had AP English together-- groom, was actually hesitant to invite me because he knows how liberal I am and didn't want me to cause trouble at his wedding. I know I'm firey but come on, a wedding? It's not like I'm going to interrupt mid-ceremony and shout "No marriage until ALL can marry!" while holding a picture of two men french kissing. Although....

But seriously, Andrew is going to Iraq in a few months, and it makes me sad that he's going overseas and risking his life for (what I feel) is a pointless war, especially right after getting married. I respect him but I don't understand why he's choosing to do this. He enlisted AFTER the war had gone on for a bit and I honestly feel he has such a romantic notion of what war entails that he's certain nothing can happen to him. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way.

On a lighter note, is the above dress appropriate for a wedding? Does the zipper scream "liberal heathen baby-hating slut"? If so, it's perfect!

i'm a busy bumblebee.

I realize this is my millionth post for the day, but I've got a lot on my mind. I'm also feeling very topical because today Jezebel addressed men changing their last names for their wives, and it's something I feel pretty strongly about.

I'm not above choosing whichever last name sounds best with my first name, so I'll probably do that if I get married. Women who keep their last names are generally treated with a raised eyebrow, but that doesn't even begin to describe the response given to men who change their last names instead. What IS that? One of my male friends, who wouldn't flinch at being called a feminist, said that my husband will "have no balls" when I suggested he might want to change his last name to mine (in theory only, as my last name is wretched).

He didn't explain why it was so emasculating or why it should matter if the husband and wife are seen as equals. When I told an older woman I know that I didn't plan on changing my name unless I liked the way it sounded, she sighed and said, "we live in a patriarchy." She's also a self-proclaimed feminist. Isn't a huge part of feminism working to CHANGE that? Baby steps are the way to go. And I'm not going by Allison Tinkle or Guzzler or Weiner. And um, if the guy I'm marrying is unfortunate enough to have one of those as his last name, he shouldn't have to go by it, either.

I'm in the school of thought that engagement rings are sexist as well, so I know I might sound radical, but just look at the reasons behind these traditions. Changing her name: done because the woman is being passed from her father to her husband (like cattle!) Engagement rings: a chance for the man to essentially "prove his worth" to the woman and her family while marking the woman as off the market.

I know these traditions are part of that whole fairy tale ideal we have in mind since childhood, but I have less affinity towards them than annoyance. I don't like the idea of being seen as property, being obligated to change my name or accepting a ring that's worth several months of my fiance's salary. Personally, I hope my future husband and I make a relatively equal amount so that he doesn't need to prove himself financially and that I'll be fine in the event of a breakup.

I'm not saying anyone else should follow suit. Everyone is free to do what they want. I'd like to exchange cheapy, modest engagement rings that we both wear and trade those in for some nicer wedding rings. But enough about me. What do you think about me?

class-inista.

I hate to be a shit-stirrer, but Fashionista never fails to annoy me with its superiority complex. Most recently, they've been defending their incessant "Adventures in Copyright" feature in which they deride people (the shoppers, not the companies) for purchasing knockoffs from Forever 21 and other cheap stores. There's something to be said for originality (though it's hard to find these days), but what bothers me most is the condescension apparent in their posts. Their moral authority seems to rest not on a respect for creative property, but rather on their own admitted purchasing power. Right after bashing a Forever 21 copy, they'll coo over Zara, J.Crew's effective Balenciaga-blazer ripoff, or tell you how to design your very own Elizabeth and James sequined tee. See the pictures above as they identify Sergio Rossi knockoffs just weeks after painting their very own version of his shoe.

They defend that last one by saying that by not selling it for profit, they are above the knockoff industry. But how do they excuse the first two? It seems to me that they hold more expensive copies in higher regard, when really, these should be criticized more intensely. A shopper spending $60 on a Balenciaga knockoff would never spring for the real thing, but someone with $500 to spare on J.Crew's version just might.

My favorite example of classic holier-than-thou Fashionista writing is intern Kyle Hayes's little article about a friend who turned up for drinks wearing (GASP!) some knockoff clothing:

"Since she's a good friend of mine, I asked her if she was familiar with the origins of her outfit. She responded, 'Oh yeah, I know. I mean, it's not like I can afford the originals, so I just got these instead.'

I winced. Such an irrelevant excuse and yet kept in a holster."

Because not being able to afford something is TOTALLY irrelevant. Um, go get some money!

Someone posted a link to a fantastic New Yorker story on the piracy paradox, which is this:

"The paradox stems from the basic dilemma that underpins the economics of fashion: for the industry to keep growing, customers must like this year’s designs, but they must also become dissatisfied with them, so that they’ll buy next year’s. Many other consumer businesses face a similar problem, but fashion—unlike, say, the technology industry—can’t rely on improvements in power and performance to make old products obsolete. Raustiala and Sprigman argue persuasively that, in fashion, it’s copying that serves this function, bringing about what they call 'induced obsolescence.' Copying enables designs and styles to move quickly from early adopters to the masses. And since no one cool wants to keep wearing something after everybody else is wearing it, the copying of designs helps fuel the incessant demand for something new."

They make several other good points:

-"There’s little evidence that knockoffs are damaging the business. Fashion sales have remained more than healthy—estimates value the global luxury-fashion sector at a hundred and thirty billion dollars— and the high-end firms that so often see their designs copied have become stronger."

-"The absence of copyrights and patents also creates a more fertile ground for that innovation, since designers are able to take other people’s ideas in new directions. Had the designers who came up with the pinstripe or the stiletto heel been able to bar others from using their creations, there would have been less innovation in fashion, not more."

-"While knockoffs undoubtedly do steal some sales from originals, they are, for the most part, targeted at an entirely different market segment—people who appreciate high style but can’t afford high prices."

So yes, it's annoying to see constant rip-offs in Forever 21 and Steve Madden. But a company like Balenciaga or YSL is not hurting financially because of it. Smaller designers have less of a safety net, but even Mayle, who was ripped off by Forever 21, said her sales were way up (despite her decision to close shop).

I'm not necessarily defending knockoffs. I don't usually buy them (to my knowledge), but I don't have as big a moral issue with them on the grounds of creative property as some others do. Direct replicas are tacky, but more often than not, these supposed copies just seem to be inspired. Plus, who's the bigger asshole: the one who spends $900 on an original t-shirt or the one who spends $34 on a shirt that looks a bit similar? Pot, kettle, I know. But the point is, frugality has its value.

Where I do have an ethical problem with knockoffs is the way they are produced, but this criticism applies to all fashion. There are $500 dresses made in China alongside those $14.90 skirts you see en masse. If you're going to attack sweatshop labor, make sure those designers and companies who engage in it but just so happen to make a larger profit and prettier goods are included as well.

What really makes me furious is the overt classism displayed by Fashionista. Fashion, like many other lifestyle industries, has historically relied on exclusion (and the use of conspicuous consumption to show status). Obviously in an ideal world, everyone could go out and find original and cheap vintage or indie designer pieces. If you know where to look, good pieces are out there, and there are so many wardrobe_remixers who look amazing in all vintage, but the market is such that vintage stores are quickly turning into consignment shops. A dress from the 60s now often costs more than its modern incarnation. And to say that "if you can't afford the real thing, go find something ELSE and don't sit at our table" is just disgusting. People involved in fashion generally want to engage with trends, and trendy items are often direct or indirect knockoffs. To not purchase the "REAL thing" or the "copy" is often to sit out on a trend cycle, and how many people hoping to break into the fashion world want to do that? The truth is, equality of opportunity is still a far cry from reality.

{images via Fashionista}

the death of mayle.

It was through reading Fashionista's nauseatingly incongruent attack on the knock off industry that I learned (Jane) Mayle will be closing her boutique and thus ending her line. It makes me sad because she's someone who makes beautiful pieces that always exude timelessness instead of trendiness.

Jane Mayle said, of the accelerating fashion calendar and her decision to close:

"The customer gets tired before the collections even hit stores . . . That mystery and remoteness and insouciance have disappeared from fashion in order to accelerate the product. I feel I have just become another cog in that machinery." (from fashionologie)

Sales were up but she was sick of the industry's insatiability. Which now leads me to believe that I am cursed. My favorite labels are the ones that fold. First Mooka Kinney, now Mayle. Blegh.

doggy do's and doggy don'ts.

I don't know if I've admitted this yet to the blogosphere, but I'm obsessed with dogs. Yes, everyone thinks puppies are cute, but I'm talking about having a serious love for them. When I was little, I only played with stuffed animals (wolves and foxes and dogs, oh my!) and I pretended to be a dog until an unhealthy age (don't judge!). I even sponsored a wolf, where you pay money annually to help take care of it and they send you the occasional generic photo. It's not very rewarding, but no matter, I felt so good about it.

Admitting this in public makes me feel like the equivalent of a crazy cat lady, which I'm already fast on my way to becoming. And when I see a puppy or a dog in public, I go "OOOOH!" instinctively. A baby? Meh.

I think it's because I've had dogs my whole life. When I was born, my dad already had a mammoth Great Dane named Virgil, and I grew up pouring water on his head and tugging on his tail as he stood there and licked my face. I've never had a bad experience with dogs, either. Even when we adopted a husky mix and she bit me, I could understand why she did it. Dogs are so adaptable that they'll be as good or bad as you train them to be. And this is what amazes me most: no other animal has been as successfully domesticated to be in tune with human behavior. I love my cats, but I don't understand why they do what they do. Dogs make it clear what they want from you. When they want to play, they bring you a toy, whine, and nudge the toy a little closer. Cats with the same desire yowl at a wall.



Over the weekend I saw THE most amazing documentary on canine intelligence. I think I might even order it so I can show everyone who doubts how perceptive dogs can be.

For example:

-Dogs can learn by inference. The average dog understands about 150 words, but there is a dog in Germany named Rico that can separately identify each of his 200+ toys. In the example shown, he sat in the middle of a circle of his toys and a man would pull a card out of a hat at random with the name of one of his toys (Octopus, Bear, Bone) and read it. Rico would then go around the circle and bring back the correct one. But then they introduced a soccer ball toy he had never seen before. They told him to get the soccer ball, and he went around the full circle of his toys, mentally identified the name of each one, and inferred that the one without a name he knew must be the soccer ball. Researchers in Italy created a version of this study with "regular dogs" and found that they all were able to infer new information in this way.



-Dogs naturally understand many human gestures. An animal behaviorist sat in a room with a dog and two cups. She put a treat in one of the cups while a board hid them from view and shuffled them around, though both cups were scented to smell like the treat. Then she removed the board and pointed at the cup with the treat in it. Ninety percent of all trials (with different dogs who had not been trained), they immediately went to the right cup. She tried again with her eyes, by looking animatedly at the correct cup, and the same results happened, even with a six-month-old puppy. Though this doesn't sound that amazing to us, even chimpanzees (which share how much of our genetic material?) don't understand this kind of human gesturing. Because they haven't been bred to connect with humans like dogs have, chimps just pick a cup at random, regardless of any furious pointing.

-A doberman that a woman in Gaithersburg, Maryland adopted when he was four regularly arranges his toys spatially and categorically. He puts them in triangles, parallel lines, and semi-circles. Furthermore, he also arranges them by type (frogs, bears) and either face up or face down. Sometimes they're even "holding hands" or have arms around one another. They showed actual video footage of him arranging the toys (because how easy would that be to fake?), and he actually places a toy, steps back, and then moves it to a new position if he sees fit. They didn't really have an explanation for why he does this. One woman theorized it was his "creative expression", and to be honest, it sounded very new-agey and hard to believe. But either way, it was ah-maaaazing!

Stuff like this makes me realize that yes, I probably have an unhealthy affinity towards dogs, but also that their full intelligence is not yet understood. In good objective fashion, the documentary posited that perhaps some people want so badly to see intellect in their dogs that they project it when it isn't there, and it's true that it's tempting to look into a dog's eyes and see real understanding. Still, the objective evidence and overall theme of the show emphasized their ability to adapt to their environment (which, in effect, is us). That adaptability, they explained, is what comprises any universal definition of intelligence (rather than such narrow constraints as the ability to do tricks, or math, as it were).

Don't get me wrong, I really hate when people anthropomorphicize their pets (dog yoga is retarded), but at the same time, too many others treat them like objects. I can't even imagine what kind of sociopathic tendencies a person must possess in order to be able to physically injure or kill a dog without feeling remorse. I'm talking to you, Michael Vick. (Because I'm sure he reads my blog!) But really, the defense that "dogfighting is a Southern thing" is utter bullshit. Most of Spain acknowledges that bullfighting is both historic AND antiquated, so why can't we? I'm all for understanding cultural practices before criticizing them, but I'm also sick of cultural relativism being used to justify horrific "customs". Is that a legitimate excuse for slavery and domestic abuse as well?

The worst part about animal abuse, especially towards dogs, is that not only do they convey how much they suffer (that part is scary, for reasons above), but that their dependence on human care leads to them having such innocent, GOOD perceptions of humanity. I don't know if "forgive" is the right word, but that's what they do. Even the Michael Vick dogs, dogs that had their mouths duct taped shut by people they trusted in order to be good target practice for other fighting dogs (they're defenseless that way), are being successfully rehabilitated.

If you've ever watched one of those animal-cops type shows, too often the rescuers find a dog that has been abused and neglected by their owners, left outside for weeks without food or water while chained to a tree. A person in that situation would surely have lost faith in humanity, and most other animals do the same. But what is the dog's natural response to these people? A wag of the tail and a lick to the face.

damn you, michael kors.

I find you obnoxious and generally pretty lackluster when it comes to your own designs. Why do you have to occasionally tempt me with your pretty shoes that are so on-trend for this fall?

...Alright, you can be charming. That "Golden Girls jacket you'd belt and call it a day" reference was spot on.

{via WhoWhatWear}

porcellen!

Finally a celeb wedding I can get excited about. Portia and Ellen wed this past weekend and they were both dressed by Zac Posen. Portia's dress is FABULOUSSSSS. Sorry this has turned into a bit of a celeb blog (what with Nicole and now these two!). I'm still sick and I guess it's turning my mind into mush. Also, I get way more excited about gay weddings than straight weddings because you get the sense that people who have only recently gained the right to wed take it much more seriously than those who have had it for ages (look at Britney's 10 hour wedding and Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire? The sanctity of marriage, my ass).

Straight people LOVE Ellen, so if anyone can prove gay marriage works, it's her!

{via The Daily Mail}

sick and enlightened.

I feel like I'm dying of the plague, but at least I have this article to keep me distracted:

Post Adolescents: Tween Bloggers

richie richie ya ya.

Is it just me, or does Nicole Richie look ah-mazing on the cover of Japanese fashion mag Gisele? I know she's divisive, but I always found her funny as hell on The Simple Life.

{via Picked Pics}