Look at this photo: does Sophia Loren look like a hoochie?

[handinpocket]

Actually, I probably would. And I do think people can dress trashy and make themselves look like trash. But hey, there's a lot of people on here much more nice than me.

Yes, there probably are. I don't consider a human being even equatable to trash unless they are a child molester or something of that nature. That is just me though.

 

[Buckalew11]

Yes, there probably are. I don't consider a human being even equatable to trash unless they are a child molester or something of that nature. That is just me though.

Well, I did say "dress trashy" and "look like trash". A bit of a difference that equating someone to trash. But, do what you want with what I said.

Actually, I probably would. And I do think people can dress trashy and make themselves look like trash. But hey, there's a lot of people on here much more nice than me.

 

[ilovepcot]

Would we say an overweight man in a tank top showing his mantitties was trashy?!:

Thanks a lot!!! Now I have jello and cool whip to clean off my desk! Man, did I spit while laughing!!!

 

[moon]

Edited: my original thread title was "is Sophia Loren a hoochie". I changed it because I didn't intend this thread to be about Sophia Loren. I was just using her photo to illustrate the style of the 1950s. I do not feel that Sophia Loren is a hoochie.

I love this look. I think it's feminine and elegant and beautiful. This is the way women dressed in the 1950s. But I have a feeling if we saw a woman at a party dressed like this she'd be called a hoochie. Why could women dress in wiggle skirts and show cleavage in the 1950s but today is sort of a no-no? I wish we could dress like this again.

Thoughts?

Wow, what a gorgeous dress! (of course it needs a body like that to wear it well). Beautiful, beautiful, though honestly I think it has too much cleavage.

I have a hard time believing regular women were wakling around showing that much cleavage. Sofia Loren was a movie star and that's obviously a publicity shot. So the dress probably doesn't closely reflect what the average woman wore back then.

I think anothe poster made a great point in that the clothes were tight, but not teen-like. Back then they aimed to look like women not girls

 

[LuvOrlando]

No you aren't reading me right. I was talking fashion in a light discussion. If you want to make this into a big thing which isn't my intention, then kindly stop directing your remarks to me. I'm here to have fun, not to get into a misunderstanding with you.

I answered YOUR question and YOU came back to challenge me, I think you are a bit off in your interpretation of who was being aggressive

 

[Aisling]

Wow, what a gorgeous dress! (of course it needs a body like that to wear it well).

I don't know how those women had such tiny waists but still looked healthy! I know the long-line bras and corsets helped, though. I think , back then, a woman wouldn't be caught dead with a muffin top or fat back.

 

[3boymthr]

I don't know if real people wore that kind of thing. Certainly people in the fashion spreads and movies did, but that is all pretty glamorous. Think about today and the things that people wear in magazines, the "red carpet", TV and movies. Even those clothes are nicer than many people wear in everyday life. So, I don't think you can go by magazine pictures and movies for how people really dressed.

Wow, what a gorgeous dress! (of course it needs a body like that to wear it well). Beautiful, beautiful, though honestly I think it has too much cleavage.

I have a hard time believing regular women were wakling around showing that much cleavage. Sofia Loren was a movie star and that's obviously a publicity shot. So the dress probably doesn't closely reflect what the average woman wore back then.

I think anothe poster made a great point in that the clothes were tight, but not teen-like. Back then they aimed to look like women not girls

My grandfather recently sent a lot of his photo albums to his kids, so we've been looking at a lot of family photos from the 50's and late 40's lately and yes, everyday people did wear clothes like that. Low cut ball gowns, fitted sweaters and pencil skirts were definitely the fashion, especially for young women. The difference is that except for bathing suits, and then even rarely, the belly button didn't show, the butt cheeks didn't show, the UNDERWEAR didn't show. People worked very very hard to keep their underthings, well, under. Women wore slips, camisoles, girdles, etc. so that their panties and bras didn't show under their dresses, blouses or skirts even under their pants. And as PP mentioned they didn't wear anything that was a size too small.

Another big difference I think is that unmarried girls (under 17 or 18) NEVER wore clothes on the street that showed skin besides arms or legs. Especially to school. My mom told me too much skin showing (no more than your neck up, at least a cap sleeve on dress/blouses/sweaters and legs could only show between knees and ankle socks - everything else had to be covered) and you were sent home from school, but you could have clothes that were pretty tight before they'd send you home. And if you married young, well, you were kicked out of school.

 

[bumbershoot]

I noticed that even in daily wear, like marketing or shopping, women wore tight clothes. Notice the pencil-skirt woman.

Yeah, my mom and her sister (born in '42 and '44) had to wear slim pencil skirts to high school.

Of course on weekends and as soon as they got home from school they changed into the big white button-up shirts with the jeans cuffed up JUST so and socks rolled down JUST so...

Same thing with Lucille Ball--she wore a size 14. Goes to show you how sizing has morphed over the years into *vanity* sizing.

An outfit considered a 14 then would be at 10 at most, probably an 8, maybe even a 6 today. If you go look at patterns for fitted clothing and see the disparity in street vs pattern sizing, that's about the difference between the 50s or so and today...

It's been done to make women feel better about themselves, but once you realize what is actually happening (if you've gained weight), it makes you feel SO much worse...

I have a hard time believing regular women were wakling around showing that much cleavage. Sofia Loren was a movie star and that's obviously a publicity shot. So the dress probably doesn't closely reflect what the average woman wore back then.

I agree with the cleavage part of that.

I don't know how those women had such tiny waists but still looked healthy! I know the long-line bras and corsets helped, though. I think , back then, a woman wouldn't be caught dead with a muffin top or fat back.

I don't know about the healthy part, but I can't help but think that people were so thin during that time last century because of all the wars right in a row! Rationing, eating more simply to make things last, just not having anything to eat...it all helps ya slim down, and it also causes people to be smaller than they might have otherwise been.

My MIL was raised in occupied Korea, and her husband (10 years older) was a kid during the Depression here, and they were SO skinny! My husband was MIL's second child (her first was a 10 pound baby but basically slim and trim child and man), and despite starting off at 8+ pounds, he was on the "husky" side. The family bemoaned his size, and he's the biggest in the family with height and weight, but he basically ate a healthy diet (ate what his mom plated for him including seconds when she decided to give them to him and he had to finish those, too) if perhaps too much. Anyway, when you look at his *skinny* dad you wonder how they are related, but then yo urealize that his dad was born into serious poverty (along with the Depression his dad was a bad gambler and an alcoholic so the family wasn't getting much money into the pantry) and you eralize that his dad was probably much SMALLER than he otherwise might have been.


Anyway, I can't help but think of all of that *lack* going on during those times, when I wonder how people were so tiny.

I have my mom's fancy dress from some party or dance or something, and there is NEVER a time in my life that I could fit into it. Even at her age when she wore it, as a trim and fit young teen, I was still that much bigger than she was.


And yes, you have to remember all the shapewear!

 

[3boymthr]

An outfit considered a 14 then would be at 10 at most, probably an 8, maybe even a 6 today. If you go look at patterns for fitted clothing and see the disparity in street vs pattern sizing, that's about the difference between the 50s or so and today...

It's been done to make women feel better about themselves, but once you realize what is actually happening (if you've gained weight), it makes you feel SO much worse...

This is sooooo true. When I was in HS we had 50's day. My mom went digging and pulled out some of her clothes from then. She was a couple of pounds heavier than I was at the same age and had a bigger bust. She wore a size 14 at that time and I was wearing an 8/10. Man, those clothes were SNUG on me.

 

[mdsoccermom]

Sophia Loren was gorgeous and she was all real--no **** jobs back then.

Did you know that she was 5'8" tall and weighed 140 lbs. Today she would most likely be considered *overweight* by the fashion industry.

Same thing with Lucille Ball--she wore a size 14. Goes to show you how sizing has morphed over the years into *vanity* sizing.

I think Marilyn Monroe was a size 12.

And speaking of Lucille Ball, I love watching I Love Lucy. I adore how she was always dressed up and put together. Even when she wore pants, she always looked sharp.

 

[Rora]

They both look gorgeous! I wish I could dress like that without getting funny looks.

 

[mdsoccermom]

I don't know if real people wore that kind of thing. Certainly people in the fashion spreads and movies did, but that is all pretty glamorous. Think about today and the things that people wear in magazines, the "red carpet", TV and movies. Even those clothes are nicer than many people wear in everyday life. So, I don't think you can go by magazine pictures and movies for how people really dressed.

People still were dressed up far more than you see now. I remember my mother telling me that she was not allowed to wear jeans to school. And there is no casual picture of her that comes even close to the casualness (if that's even a word) of today's fashions. Even flying on a plane was reason to get dress up. You never saw people on planes as casual as you do now.

 

[NY Disney fan]

Her ****s are a little too "out there" for me but I think she looks pretty in those photos. I wouldn't wear those outfits b/c I wouldn't want anyone staring at my chest. But I do love 50's fashion.

 

[robinb]

My grandfather recently sent a lot of his photo albums to his kids, so we've been looking at a lot of family photos from the 50's and late 40's lately and yes, everyday people did wear clothes like that.

I'm still not sure you are seeing everyday people wearing everyday clothes. Cameras, film and processing were still quite expensive in the 40's and 50's and people didn't just take pictures of themselves on a whim. My guess is that many of your family photographs were taken at a gathering where people were already more dressed up. Think about how people dress in the downtown area of a busy city v/s how they dress back at home.

I don't know about the healthy part, but I can't help but think that people were so thin during that time last century because of all the wars right in a row! Rationing, eating more simply to make things last, just not having anything to eat...it all helps ya slim down, and it also causes people to be smaller than they might have otherwise been.

My MIL was raised in occupied Korea, and her husband (10 years older) was a kid during the Depression here, and they were SO skinny! My husband was MIL's second child (her first was a 10 pound baby but basically slim and trim child and man), and despite starting off at 8+ pounds, he was on the "husky" side. The family bemoaned his size, and he's the biggest in the family with height and weight, but he basically ate a healthy diet (ate what his mom plated for him including seconds when she decided to give them to him and he had to finish those, too) if perhaps too much. Anyway, when you look at his *skinny* dad you wonder how they are related, but then yo urealize that his dad was born into serious poverty (along with the Depression his dad was a bad gambler and an alcoholic so the family wasn't getting much money into the pantry) and you eralize that his dad was probably much SMALLER than he otherwise might have been.


Anyway, I can't help but think of all of that *lack* going on during those times, when I wonder how people were so tiny.

I have my mom's fancy dress from some party or dance or something, and there is NEVER a time in my life that I could fit into it. Even at her age when she wore it, as a trim and fit young teen, I was still that much bigger than she was.

I think you have a good point about body size and nutrition. Look at North Korean children today compared to their South Korean counterparts. One third of the MK kids suffer from stunted growth from malnutrition while the SK kids do not.

 

[eliza61]

Even though the women may have worn form fitting outfits back in the 50's, I think one reason they didn't look skeezy was as a general rule the quality of fabric was a lot better.

I have quite a few pencil skirts and black cocktail dresses from my mom, vintage 1950. Let me tell you all of them are nicely lined so you don't have to see panty lines, all of them are extremely well stitched so you don't have pulling of the fabric and seems and all of them are excellent weight material. No riding or bunching up.

I have a black beaded knit dress that fits me like a glove, I'm a size 12 and it is absolutely the best knit I own. the beads have not dropped off. The dress is an easy 50 years old.

I think that's one reason why vintage dresses are so expensive and so popular.


this is one of my favorite websites.

http://www.poshgirlvintage.com/index.php

 

[Tinkermommy]

Well, I have a curvy body (fuller bust and hips and smaller waist). I tend to dress in 50s silhouettes since they flatter my figure (knee length pencil skirts, simple sweaters and knit tops). They are figure hugging but not tight.

A lot of styles today don't look good on me. The tops with all the ruffles look horrible on a fuller chest. They are very cute, but I can't wear them.

FWIW, I think Sophia Loren is gorgeous. But she was a sex symbol and dressed for that effect when in front of a camera.

It would be like saying women today dress like Jennifer Lopez.

Edited to add: The styles from the 1920s were much more revealing than the 50s. And the 20s flattered taller, thinner, smaller chested woman. Gorgeous clothes then as well.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I love the fashions from that time period.

Even though the women may have worn form fitting outfits back in the 50's, I think one reason they didn't look skeezy was as a general rule the quality of fabric was a lot better.

I have quite a few pencil skirts and black cocktail dresses from my mom, vintage 1950. Let me tell you all of them are nicely lined so you don't have to see panty lines, all of them are extremely well stitched so you don't have pulling of the fabric and seems and all of them are excellent weight material. No riding or bunching up.

I have a black beaded knit dress that fits me like a glove, I'm a size 12 and it is absolutely the best knit I own. the beads have not dropped off. The dress is an easy 50 years old.

I think that's one reason why vintage dresses are so expensive and so popular.


this is one of my favorite websites.

http://www.poshgirlvintage.com/index.php

I agree.

Another difference to me is you may see one area as form fitting, but the whole outfit wouldn't be a "catsuit" as a norm. That is IIRC from the pictures I've seen. That seems to be the difference to me.

These days there are the Kardashians running around with cleavage, spandex, and all sorts of things going on. Not that they are the standard, they are just photographed a lot, but you see that kind of thing quite often.

 

[mdsoccermom]

Even though the women may have worn form fitting outfits back in the 50's, I think one reason they didn't look skeezy was as a general rule the quality of fabric was a lot better.

I have quite a few pencil skirts and black cocktail dresses from my mom, vintage 1950. Let me tell you all of them are nicely lined so you don't have to see panty lines, all of them are extremely well stitched so you don't have pulling of the fabric and seems and all of them are excellent weight material. No riding or bunching up.

I have a black beaded knit dress that fits me like a glove, I'm a size 12 and it is absolutely the best knit I own. the beads have not dropped off. The dress is an easy 50 years old.

I think that's one reason why vintage dresses are so expensive and so popular.


this is one of my favorite websites.

http://www.poshgirlvintage.com/index.php

Absolutely. Clothes were designed to last. They weren't disposable like they seem to be now.

 

[luvsJack]

My mother has a lot of "casual" pictures of herself and her sisters during that era and yes they did dress like that. I LOVE those pictures and the clothes she had. I have to agree that the clothes were a much better quality. Mom always says that they were much less of a "one time use" society back then, when they bought something it was meant to last. She and Dad didn't have a lot of money so I know she didn't spend a huge amount on clothes but in every picture she looks well dressed and well put together.

She has one picture of all of them on my Dad's ski boat in swimsuits and hats and sunglasses. I love that picture, they all look so classy.

 

[IdesOmarch]

Not at all, I agree with your initial assessment, I think it is very elegant and beautiful. "Hoochie" is generally something like thigh high leather boots, super duper short skirt, maybe like hot pink latex, and a super revealing top. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)