Not sure about the odd naming of the dress by I wish it did not have a mermaid bottom. I would have prefered a straight dress... oh well. I like the idea though
"how is this sexy? just becaue its backless, doesnt make it sexy."
It's an element of clothing design that you might be unaware of, but it's been around for quite a long time; since it's generally not done to death, it's a classic without looking overdone all the time. The puritanical front combined with the extremely low back (and the nice peak at the nape of the neck) is quite a nice and somewhat unexpected pairing. Definitely sexier than most of the super-short, super-tight, "my-boobs-are-falling-out" styles that proliferate on Sims sites, IMO.
Honestly, I don't care for this dress. I don't like the textures at all, and I could do without the mermaid fin. The cut is still pretty sexy.
I am a woman so I don't have an obsession with "tits" as the word was so eloquently stated above. I think the most attractive feature on a woman's body to show off without being trashy is her back. That doesn't work for a woman that has a manly back or is wide through the shoulders like a guy. So sexy, yes but not trashy.
^ In case another post appears, I'm talking to the "back is most attractive anon" I don't understand how a women with wide shoulders can't look 'sexy' with an open back dress. It can actually be argued that they work best on broad shoulders, as they are seen as a 'balance' to the width across the shoulders. I was with you until you said that...
I agree that the back is a very sexy part of a woman's body, and I also think it works well on a wide-shouldered woman, as long as the overall cut of the dress is flattering.
I like the shape of this, but not so much the textures.
Actually, no, I hadn't. The angle I had my screen at made the whole thing look a lot darker and I couldn't tell it was quite as transparent as it is. I think my comment still stands regarding the covered vs open cut of the dress, though.
The definition of "modesty" has not changed, but every culture and every generation has different ideas of what falls *under* that definition. It's more the *classification* that is continually changing (and that's to be expected and not something to lament) rather than the definition itself.
Sexy!
ReplyDeleteWhat does Lusille have against geisha?!
ReplyDeletehow is this sexy? just becaue its backless, doesnt make it sexy.
ReplyDeleteEveryone has different opinions of what is sexy or not... This is actually a really nice looking dress. :)
ReplyDeleteIt looks low quality, and I don't understand why it's called "Anti-Geisha"
ReplyDeleteI'd like to know why it's called this as well. Seems like it's a Russian thing.
ReplyDeleteNot sure about the odd naming of the dress by I wish it did not have a mermaid bottom. I would have prefered a straight dress... oh well. I like the idea though
ReplyDelete"how is this sexy? just becaue its backless, doesnt make it sexy."
ReplyDeleteIt's an element of clothing design that you might be unaware of, but it's been around for quite a long time; since it's generally not done to death, it's a classic without looking overdone all the time. The puritanical front combined with the extremely low back (and the nice peak at the nape of the neck) is quite a nice and somewhat unexpected pairing. Definitely sexier than most of the super-short, super-tight, "my-boobs-are-falling-out" styles that proliferate on Sims sites, IMO.
Honestly, I don't care for this dress. I don't like the textures at all, and I could do without the mermaid fin. The cut is still pretty sexy.
The name doesn't make sense, though.
^Yes, and even the hands are covered. Makes most of the dress seem sooooo modest that the back really stands out.
ReplyDeleteI agree about the textures.
Haven't we seen something very similar before by this creator? I mean didn't she make another dress with the hands covered?
ReplyDeleteI remember thinking that I'd like the dress if it didn't cover the hands.
modest??????? hello, have u seen the tits??
ReplyDelete^ and they're totally covered. lighten up. -_-
ReplyDeleteWell, at least they look *mostly* covered...
ReplyDeleteAnyone find out where this name for the dress came from yet?
I am a woman so I don't have an obsession with "tits" as the word was so eloquently stated above. I think the most attractive feature on a woman's body to show off without being trashy is her back. That doesn't work for a woman that has a manly back or is wide through the shoulders like a guy. So sexy, yes but not trashy.
ReplyDelete^ In case another post appears, I'm talking to the "back is most attractive anon"
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how a women with wide shoulders can't look 'sexy' with an open back dress. It can actually be argued that they work best on broad shoulders, as they are seen as a 'balance' to the width across the shoulders. I was with you until you said that...
I agree that the back is a very sexy part of a woman's body, and I also think it works well on a wide-shouldered woman, as long as the overall cut of the dress is flattering.
ReplyDeleteI like the shape of this, but not so much the textures.
"modest??????? hello, have u seen the tits??"
ReplyDeleteActually, no, I hadn't. The angle I had my screen at made the whole thing look a lot darker and I couldn't tell it was quite as transparent as it is. I think my comment still stands regarding the covered vs open cut of the dress, though.
... Well I like it, just saying.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the word modesty has lost its true meaning over time.
ReplyDelete^ That's... kinda deep.
ReplyDelete^No, it's really not.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of "modesty" has not changed, but every culture and every generation has different ideas of what falls *under* that definition. It's more the *classification* that is continually changing (and that's to be expected and not something to lament) rather than the definition itself.
"^No, it's really not."
ReplyDeletePretty sure that "deep" comment was sarcasm.
^Thank god.
ReplyDeleteooo lala
ReplyDelete