This one’s straight from the WTF files.
I was perusing a few plus size clothing sites in an attempt to find a holiday dress that would both fit the way I’d like and pay homage to my gothy-Victorian-Renaissance-y aesthetic. Needless to say, no easy task. However, I was having a bit of luck on Zaftique (though, WTF #1: $120 for knit and polyester? Where was it weaved, on the fucking Moon?).
I came across one dress in particular that seemed as if it could be perfect. But although I usually don’t read the textual sales pitch accompanying the dress, this time my eye caught a word I didn’t expect in a description of a piece of clothing — “sin”.
The offending dress:
Apparently having arms and legs is a "sin" now! Who knew.
Here’s the link to the dress.
I’m trying to figure out what they mean by “sins” here — maybe you could help me out. I must be missing something, because it seems to imply that the greatest density of sins 0ccur around the upper arm and upper thigh area.
Please help me out. Because, from the way the description reads, it could only imply that “sins” is literally equivalent with fat cells. And though I’ve seen fat moralized in many different ways before, this is the first time I’ve seen the actual tissue called evil.
P.S. Anyone else see the irony in this being a scarlet-colored dress?
Big Liberty 
Sins = all the baby-flavored donuts you ate to get those thighs. Fatty.
Seriously, though, ick. What a horrible description.
Of course, scarlet is the only color for a dress created to hide the “sins” of fat arms/thighs (much better than a black dress with a scarlet “F” on it, dontcha think?).
And why wouldn’t they think having fat arms or thighs is a sin? After all, fat is a moral issue nowadays, according to all those who think their opinion matters.
It is a cute dress, but I don’t think my rack of doom would fit in the top of it (and I’m not into dresses anyway, I’d end up wanting to cut it off and make it into a tunic top……LOL).
Well then, I must be going straight to hell because I have flabby arms and thunder thighs.
But it is a gorgeous dress. Like Vesta though, my boobs would be spilling out of it. I’d have to wear a lace cami underneath for modesty. That’s a huge pet peeve of mine, so many plus-size dresses aren’t cut high enough for those of us that don’t want major cleavage showing.
@goodbyemyboy: But don’t worry, Zaftique can cover up ALL those donut-related sins! 😉
@Vesta: Yes, the scarlet F!! I swear, I need to collect some of these ideas for a Cafe Press store or something. If anyone wants to go in on one with me, let me know… 🙂
@Bree: “Well then, I must be going straight to hell because I have flabby arms and thunder thighs.”
I’m also guilty as charged…I guess “guilt” with respect to moralized fat is becoming a lot more literal. And it IS a gorgeous dress. Which is why I boggled even more at the text. I mean, I could see someone writing that next to a muumuu or kaftan or similar tents, because personally I’d have to feel pretty dang criminal to be caught in one of those. But to treat such a gorgeous dress as some kind of guilty pleasure (to be worn once, and then back to the tents, fatty!) is such a shame.
I’m bereft of a rack o’doom, I’m severely pear-shaped. So a dress like this would probably fit well enough (sometimes I have trouble with the dress hanging too low because it’s too loose in the top, however).
“And though I’ve seen fat moralized in many different ways before, this is the first time I’ve seen the actual tissue called evil.”
Really? This is the first time you’ve seen clothing described as ‘hiding a multitude of sin’s? I’m amazed.
http://www.google.com/search?q=clothing+hide+a+multitude+of+sins&hl=en&sa=2
This reminds of those chips I saw in Trader Joe’s labeled “Reduced Guilt.” Like I should feel guilty for eating chips??? I guess they’re baked or something, which I would probably like better than the fried kind, but I will not buy anything that implies I should feel guilty for eating what I want to eat.
In the same way, this is a lovely dress, but I can’t buy something that’s labeled as hiding my “sins.” My supposed sins are obviously all the food I gorged on to get this fat, and also the exercise I didn’t do to tone my upper arms. I resent the implication that all fatties are sinners in the religion of thinness. Also, it probably wouldn’t fit my boobs.
Who are these people that don’t want cleavage showing? I don’t understand.
I was thinking of wearing it to a company party, and would probably have to alter the top so that the shoulder-to-shoulder width isn’t so huge (for some reason many plus-size designers think fat ladies have shoulders like linebackers…Not.True.). If I did that I’d also bring the V up a bit so that it could show a little cleavage, but not a ton.
You know, now that I think of it, someone should start a business that’s just plus-size tailoring. I mean there’s so many common problems — they could do modesty panels, shoulder width decreases, and so on. Goldmine!
I would like to think that they’re implying that you can strap a flask of bourbon to each thigh and the smokable goods of your choice to various body parts, and the dress will magically smooth over so they’re invisible – that’s got to be it, right?
Great dress though – I love the color! And YES on the shoulders – I even have wide shoulders and every dress I buy has a wide enough neckline to expose my bra straps – arrgh!
I guess referring to the body as having sins is marginally better then “flawed” 😛
Forgive me for being a dumb male, but isn’t that description simply stating in plain language what a whole class of women’s clothing is designed to do? Lately a style of clothing has become popular that is almost just like this (sans the Renaissance-esque appeal): tight bust, but loose and flowing around the stomach and hips. To me, it all looks like maternity wear. But it’s obvious this this stuff is designed to accentuate positives and hide perceived negatives (not unlike men’s suits).
Yes, the use of ‘sins’ is stupid, but theological language is misappropriated all across the cultural board. Welcome to a post-Christian America. People who are, for all intents and purposes, atheists will still routinely exclaim, “oh my God!” or “God d***!” No surprise that ‘sins’ would be misappropriated, particularly in this case. White guys, fat people, and racists are the last groups it is socially acceptable to loathe.
It’s amazing how much judgment gets disguised as humor.
@pastormack: America isn’t a ‘post’Christian’ country and using the word ‘sin’ is kinda offputting, no?
@Amanda: I like yer reasoning 😉
@magickal: who or what was I judging?
@joy-Mari, why aren’t we in a post-Christian setting in contemporary America? and yes, I agreed that using sin is off-putting, but not as much as the way we use ‘God’ without thinking.
@pastormack: My name is Joy-Mari.
You’re not in a post-Christian country because much of your society is still steeped in the Judaeo–Christian way of life. And many religious groups use their political clout to push their views on everyone else, even those countries that receive funding from America.
Joy-Mari, I am sorry for not capitalizing that letter.
What constitutes a “Jude0-Christian” way of life? Jews and Christians are two distinct religious communities (with many variances within each; we do not share a single way of living).
You say much of my country is still “steeped in this way of life.” And yet when I look around, I see poverty, I see people who would rather watch Flavor Flav than read a Gospel, I see MTV defining culture much more than any faith is. No prayer at football games and the like. In many towns, no Christmas displays. Some Churches are getting in legal trouble for ringing their bells. If there is a Christian heritage, I do not see it on the public square.
To parts of the rest of the world (secularized Europe in particular), America may look frighteningly religious. But we are most certainly in a post-Christian state. How exactly are these unnamed “religious groups” “pushing” their views on everyone else? Last I checked, you cannot make someone follow Jesus.
Abstinence only groups lobby the government to withdraw funds if the recipients do not provide abstinence only education. You can’t make someone follow Jesus but you can sure tell them they’re going to hell if they don’t comply with the holy book.
A bit of googling got me this from HuffPo:
Here in the U.S. those seeking a religious society want the government:
1. in the examining room with doctor and patient to tell a woman what to do with her body, and put both doctor and patient in jail if fail to conform to religious teachings;
2. in our bedrooms to enforce anti-sodomy laws;
3. in our classrooms to teach religious doctrine about evolution;
4. in our universities to prevent research on stem cells (now battling at the state level); and
5. to display religious doctrine in public places and courtrooms
We’re in a Judaeo–Christian world because our culture is soaking in it. Read a book, watch a movie, go to a gallery, listen to music and many cultural references are from this tradition. Many people in your country belong to the Judaeo–Christian tradition and they’ll be astonished to hear that you claim their country is not Christian.
Heh. Maybe it’s scarlet to hide your sins- the sin of spilling red wine all over yourself!