Thread: Having open armpits on costumes with sleeves?

I don't find the appearance of an open armpit to be displeasing to the eye except when the dancer does not shave the armpit. This goes for men too as it is distracting and not in an eye appealing way.

Interesting discussion - until this day, I never thought about it that it would bother some people but I learn something new everyday. Then again, if a dancer doesn't wear sleeves at all, should she never show her armpit while dancing? I would think that's pretty hard, if not impossible, to pull off.

Originally Posted by tahiradancer

Okay, I have to ask, where is this whole conversation coming from? There appears to be the same kind of heat behind this as the use of AmCab.

I started this conversation because there was a different thread in which several people were advising a dancer to put open armpits in her Turkish vest. I didn't want to derail her thread with my opinion of the open armpit aesthetic, so I decided to start a new thread on the subject. It's really that simple.

Like Dunyah, I've seen U.S. belly dancers using open-armpit costumes for literally decades. I've gotten used to it, but I've never learned to LIKE it. So I decided to voice my dissenting opinion. I expected to be in the minority, and the poll results so far show that to indeed be true. I suspect there could be others who don't particularly like the look who may be afraid to speak up. I think it's a good thing for newer dancers reading this thread to see that not everybody thinks the open armpits are the optimal thing to do. People may end up deciding to do it after reading the thread and seeing both points of view expressed, and that's fine.

I just think that people choosing to do open armpits should do so as a conscious choice, rather than just following the pack without really knowing why.

I didn't like the open armpit at first, and found it vaguely distracting. Then I came to see it as an authentic/traditional design element, and it grew on me...much like dancers who put their hands on their foreheads or temples and emote so hard that it looks like they're in physical pain.

To address your question, Shira....I don't think open armpit costumes are the best choice for general public/mainstream events that are focused on glamour or happyfuntimes. It's seeerious costuming for seeerious dancers (or at least, ethnic/folkloric focused dancers). Also, not every dance performance is suitable for glamour/happyfuntime events, either.

I don't like the open armpit for myself, because I don't want to worry about whether I have flabby or shadowy armpits. But I like them on others.

I think they're fine. They're historically correct and functional. So what is the big deal?

Also, why ruin a fine garment with perspiration?

I guess I must have had really badly made clothing my entire life (sorry Mum, your sewing wasn't up to par, and sorry commercial manufacturers, you also sucked) because I've never ever had a fitted, sleeved garment that did not rise up a little when I raise my arms above my head. Even T-shirts do it. The only reason this matters to me in a BD dress or tunic is because there is usually a hip belt that I don't want to ride up when I do it. It's fine if you make the garment long and loose and make it bouffant over the hip scarf, but when you have it fitted to your body there is always that tension between the pinned-to-your-underpants belt and the upward extension.

A gusset works really well but a slashed seam is easier to make. And like one of the posters above, it's a look that I initially found a little strange but now find charming and very typical.

And let us just admit it - when costumes are not washable, as they sometimes are not, knowing the stinkiest sweat is being wafted away, not soaking in for all eternity, is enough to make a girl feel secure in her daintiness on all dancing occasions.

Originally Posted by Elibelinde

Also, why ruin a fine garment with perspiration?

That's the rationale I was given (by a former instructor). Bellydance costumes are often heavily beaded/sequinned and difficult to really clean. I was told the open armpit was to help keep the costume from being ruined by perspiration.

Originally Posted by *Shira*

There's nothing incompetent about the design feature if its purpose is to enhance the look of the overall garment. But so far on this thread nobody has stated that is their purpose in choosing the feature. I do understand people liking the comfort aspect, but let's go ahead and acknowledge that in such cases the dancer is choosing her personal agenda over that of creating a positive experience for the audience.

I'm happy to disagree.

Firstly, by including the open seam and therefore eliminating a potential unsightly sweat stain, the cold armpit is definitely enhancing the costume.

Furthermore, I would ask that you acknowledge some dancers do sweat prolifically, and by their deliberate choice of cold-armpit costume over a closed seam, they are intent on creating the most positive experience possible for their audience by ensuring the audience isn't subjected to dark, sweaty patches under the dancer's arms. The dancer feels more comfortable physically and mentally, because she knows she's not subjecting her audience to that visual discomfort. Better sparkly beads than moist stains....

Remember, different horses for different courses.

Originally Posted by da Sage

I didn't like the open armpit at first, and found it vaguely distracting. Then I came to see it as an authentic/traditional design element, and it grew on me...much like dancers who put their hands on their foreheads or temples and emote so hard that it looks like they're in physical pain.

To address your question, Shira....I don't think open armpit costumes are the best choice for general public/mainstream events that are focused on glamour or happyfuntimes. It's seeerious costuming for seeerious dancers (or at least, ethnic/folkloric focused dancers). Also, not every dance performance is suitable for glamour/happyfuntime events, either.

I don't like the open armpit for myself, because I don't want to worry about whether I have flabby or shadowy armpits. But I like them on others.

pretty much this- I was a little taken a back the first time- it was like-

wow- who didn't bother to finish that- and then well- that makes it easier to x, y and z and finally- well I am at the ren faire and at such and such event- so I guess it makes some sense

(all of this at the same stream of conscious moment)

I still don't much care for them because they are visually distracting- dark beautiful dancer then lifts her hands up and... oh shebam- well... there's an armpit. um- okay.

it doesn't affect my view on the dance over all- I just register it and then try to ignore it- I'm pretty obsessive and will nag a point mentally to death- and that just isn't it.

so while I don't like it- I won't die if I see it.

bother's me less at ren faire- looks more at home there.

(PS when did we get a poll feature- that's awesome!)

Okay, here's the solution. Sew the bottoms of the sleeves to the sides of the dress!

LOL as if half the dance world already doesn't have an issue with the T-Rex arms.

LMAO

beautiful dress though- just started looking for one.... <drool>

I don't understand the aesthetic issue with showing the armpits. Armpits are bare in the majority of oriental dance costumes. Its not like buttcheek cutouts, where one could logically argue that that body part isn't normally exposed in most dance costumes.

I don't think it is the most beautiful thing with open armpits but rather that than a big sweat stain. If something distracts from the dancing it's fabric coloured dark by sweat.

Furthermore, if the dancer is good then I won't notice much else. If the dancer is bad then there is probably something else that is more annoying than an open armpit.

Shira, in NO WAY did I mean to imply you were being condescending- just wanted to knock that whole impression out of the park since I could see my "well if it fit properly" comments being taken that way, even tho that is not my intent either.

I am a bit shocked, honestly, at the "historical accuracy" bit being used as a defense in obviously modern costumes- we've changed the fabric, the shape of the bra cups, the line of the skirts, the ornamentation, the accessories- pretty much everything except the varying amount of flesh on display, but we can't reconsider this one design issue which has outlived the very costumes for which it was designed? Recreating historical garments for a specific purpose is quite different from modern dance couture.

If you are really attached to the open arm pits and *choose* to use it in a costume, do what you want. I, like Shira, just want people to think about whether that is really needed or what you want.

& yes, I have heard audience comments about it. Like I said earlier, the heavily beaded costumes which make it obvious the pit hole are a design feature bother me a lot less than the ones which actually do look like someone just forgot to finish a seam. It IS distracting, even for me who understands why it might be there. I swear, I'm not going around looking for things to dislike when I go to see a performance!

Originally Posted by Zumarrad

I guess I must have had really badly made clothing my entire life (sorry Mum, your sewing wasn't up to par, and sorry commercial manufacturers, you also sucked) because I've never ever had a fitted, sleeved garment that did not rise up a little when I raise my arms above my head. Even T-shirts do it. The only reason this matters to me in a BD dress or tunic is because there is usually a hip belt that I don't want to ride up when I do it. It's fine if you make the garment long and loose and make it bouffant over the hip scarf, but when you have it fitted to your body there is always that tension between the pinned-to-your-underpants belt and the upward extension.

The hip belt isn't the only reason it matters. The fact that this is a dance garment, which is used when you are performing movements not typical in other endeavors, matters. I have clothes I love for every day wear or special occasions that are not appropriate for dancing. That's okay- different considerations were made to suit *their* purpose. Including tee shirts.

Originally Posted by Zumarrad

A gusset works really well but a slashed seam is easier to make.

That's part of the point I was trying to make earlier. A good fitted seam that still gives enough freedom of movement for dance *is* hard to construct, and not many of us want to take the time to find a tailor willing to adjust the ready made costumes for a perfect fit either. I understand, I just want people to know there are other options out there.

Originally Posted by Lara L

I am a bit shocked, honestly, at the "historical accuracy" bit being used as a defense in obviously modern costumes- we've changed the fabric, the shape of the bra cups, the line of the skirts, the ornamentation, the accessories- pretty much everything except the varying amount of flesh on display, but we can't reconsider this one design issue which has outlived the very costumes for which it was designed?

Sigh. Yet again, we've been bested by ballet. Their technology for making stretchy arm holes in long-sleeved leotards has laid bare our inferiority.

& yes, I have heard audience comments about it.

Just curious, does anyone have any data regarding audience comments and distraction when the audiences are ethnic? I can understand GP audiences (who are used to contiguous underarm seams) being confused by openings in places where openings are considered mistakes in other clothes, but are contemporary Arab and Turkish audiences wondering if we've busted a seam when they first see the armpit hole, too?

Originally Posted by Tourbeau

Just curious, does anyone have any data regarding audience comments and distraction when the audiences are ethnic? I can understand GP audiences (who are used to contiguous underarm seams) being confused by openings in places where openings are considered mistakes in other clothes, but are contemporary Arab and Turkish audiences wondering if we've busted a seam when they first see the armpit hole, too?

I think this may be a very salient point. I have heard comments about dresses, dress cut-outs, miniskirts, hairstyles, shoes, weight, bras, etc. when the dancer doesn't conform to the audience's initial expectations, but I haven't heard the underarm thing personally. Like I said before, I am sure it happens. I got an earful at a recent event about a burlesque fusion number that was on stage. Different audiences have different expectations and, in some cases, that might include your choice of underarm coverage. I don't think there is any hard data on this out there right now unless someone is taking audience surveys at their shows, so the best we will have is probably anecdotal evidence which will always be colored by the individual dancer's location and experiences.

The only time I don't like the open underarm seam is when it was clearly done out of desperation -- the armscye is just too low, so somebody opened the underarm seam. Then they are often left with a weird gaping armhole that looks even worse.

I rather like the trend that matches a cold armpit with a cold shoulder, so the sleeve is essentially held to the dress with two wide, curved straps. Looks nice.

I never knew that open armpits were done to make the costume a better fit... I always assumed they were there to air out the armpits while dancing.

Personally, I dislike the look. I've only seen it in the context of belly dance, and I think it's very odd to have the arms and shoulders covered but have holes on the armpits. It either looks like you are purposely showing off your armpits for some reason, or like you are avoiding a sweat stain. The former reason would be odd, and the latter is legitimate, but it seems a little antithetical to the whole long sleeve thing.

I mean, I can understand why some people choose them for those reasons. I sweat a lot less than the average person, so it's easy for me to diss open armpits. With that said, if it's hot, and/or if I will be dancing for a long time, I simply choose not to wear long sleeves. I feel like, if I am going to sweat, why wear something that is meant to be worn to keep me warm? If sweating is the problem, why wear long sleeves in the first place?

Plus, the small hole doesn't seem like it would completely prevent sweat stains. The armpit is still going to sweat, except now we will get to see a sweaty naked armpit plus a bit of sweat stains around the hole, no?

As a mature dancer, I want to present the most attractive image of myself that I can when I am performing. To that end, I use strategic camouflage of my less-than-perfect features, which includes wearing vests over my costume bras (for more coverage) and gauntlets, sleeves, or upper arm bands. While I don't currently have any open-armpit costumes, I have nothing against them, and I've never heard it raised as an issue before now.

I don't see that much difference between the open armpit between my vest and gauntlets and an open seam in the costume. I'm surprised that it's even an issue, but each dancer should costume herself so she feels beautiful, confident, and comfortable (relatively speaking, belly dance costumes are usually not very comfrotable to wear for any length of time).

Also keep in mind that no matter what you do or don't do, some people will love it and some people will not. So just do your best to present a professional performance.

I personally don’t care for the open armpit look because it showcases the underarm. The missing fabric creates a frame to highlight a part of the body that isn’t particularly attractive. A sleeveless top doesn’t have this same effect because the entire arm is bare and the emphasis isn’t placed on the armpit.

I haven’t seen open-armpit costumes too often, but it does look like the seam got ripped at first glance. Also, the idea that the fabric is missing because the dancer is sweating a lot doesn’t seem very appealing.

Any time I’ve made costumes with sleeves, I’ve managed to have luck with the fit. Using fabric with a bit of stretch to it helps a lot. Sometimes the body of the fabric rides up a little, but I’d rather have a little ride up with the fabric that have my armpits framed and on display. I also tend to wear long sleeves when I’m cold, and I wouldn’t want any extra ventilation if I’m dancing outside and it’s freezing!

Originally Posted by Tourbeau

Sigh. Yet again, we've been bested by ballet. Their technology for making stretchy arm holes in long-sleeved leotards has laid bare our inferiority.

Traditional tutu's generally don't have sleeves. An when they do, they are usually just set dressing and don't have arm pits. Leotards are relatively new to ballet. And they have always been knit. Seen as rehearsal wear, they weren't often worn on stage. Especially for traditional ballets. Says the former ballet dancer who has had to complete more than one number with broken straps.

{{{HUGS}}}

Originally Posted by tahiradancer

Traditional tutu's generally don't have sleeves. An when they do, they are usually just set dressing and don't have arm pits.

Aren't the traditional basques worn with tutus made from non stretch fabric?
*is trying to remember*

Originally Posted by tahiradancer

Traditional tutu's generally don't have sleeves. An when they do, they are usually just set dressing and don't have arm pits. Leotards are relatively new to ballet. And they have always been knit. Seen as rehearsal wear, they weren't often worn on stage. Especially for traditional ballets. Says the former ballet dancer who has had to complete more than one number with broken straps.

Leotards have been around for over a hundred years, although perhaps they were initially more common with circus performers than ballet dancers. Regardless of whether leotards get worn on stage or not, ballet dancers sometimes practice in long-sleeved leotards, and manage to lift their arms in the process of doing so without giving themselves debilitating wedgies. I was just using the leotard as an example of how it's exceedingly common to make a garment for dancing that has arm mobility with a fully enclosed arm seam.

I actually own a vintage leotard that is probably from the late 1950s. It's a nylon doubleknit and quite a bit more restrictive in terms of fabric stretch than what one would buy today, and it has bust darts to help with shaping.

Leotards are held down on the body by having a bit that runs between your legs. This is why you cn raise your arms in a long sleeved one without anything pinging up. Belly dance costumes, even lycra ones, have nothing to hold the hem down. Therefore, they rise. It's probably not even physics.

And I agree with Tahiradancer, traditional tutus - which do not stretch - do not have sleeves and never did, and if they have any kind of sleeve, it is a little cap thing with an open armpit or a puffy detached sleeve that sits on the arm. Occasionally the costumes have big puffy sleeves and they don't need to be cold-pitted because they can be made deep enough for there to be no problem.

But I think it is fairly obvious from any image search that 20th century ballet does not dislike armpits and indeed likes to expose armpits a lot.

Open armpits on costumes with sleeves are practical for dancers, but may look weird to the viewing audience. I don't like the look.

I'd prefer to see this:

Originally Posted by tigerb

I rather like the trend that matches a cold armpit with a cold shoulder, so the sleeve is essentially held to the dress with two wide, curved straps. Looks nice.

Or, the open area covered by a stretchy mesh so the skin doesn't show. This way the arms could be raised without the costume riding up.

Originally Posted by MirahmarArati

Aren't the traditional basques worn with tutus made from non stretch fabric?
*is trying to remember*

Satin, velvet, muslin or cotton, depending on what they were used for. The original ones were corsets.

{{{HUGS}}}

A basque IS a corset, or at least was during the period in question. Some specialist corsetiers now distinguish between the two as technical terms, but otherwise it's UK/Commonwealth English vs. US English. :)

This is *really* an interesting thread, and now admittedly I'm a bit torn as to what to do with the vest that was the springboard...

Mostly because my considerations in wanting to make it peekapit were [1] the assumption that it was a familiar convention -- a "done" thing; and [2] entirely self-interested (covering my arms in inconsistent modesty while having room to flail around ineptly and not making such big dark pitstains -- or leaving pale streaks of industrial-strength Secret -- on nice fabric.) I hadn't taken into full consideration (mostly due to inexperience) that to an audience, it might not be recognizable enough as a convention to not look plumb weird, or unfortunate, or accidental -- enough to really distract. Which, apparently, it really can. It looks from this discussion that it's about a 50-50 split on whether any benefit for the dancer is outweighed by the aesthetics. And, since this IS a performing art, the potential aesthetic perception of the audience is very important.

So now I'm thinking harder on the project, beyond the practical (selfish) motivations. Thanks, Shira, for starting this discussion (and everyone else in the post!), because it really helps to hear "have you considered..." from vastly more experienced perspectives.

Originally Posted by Suzana

A basque IS a corset, or at least was during the period in question. Some specialist corsetiers now distinguish between the two as technical terms, but otherwise it's UK/Commonwealth English vs. US English. :)

I think what I was trying to distinguish is that the original costumes were actual corsets which women wore every day, rarely a garment specially designed for the stage. Likewise, many times the costumes, especially those worn by the leads, were everyday clothing or at least clothing which was contemporary to the time.

{{{{HUGS}}}

Originally Posted by Zumarrad

Leotards are held down on the body by having a bit that runs between your legs. This is why you cn raise your arms in a long sleeved one without anything pinging up. Belly dance costumes, even lycra ones, have nothing to hold the hem down. Therefore, they rise. It's probably not even physics.

That's true, but if I wore a garment that was of similar shape (i.e., closed at the crotch and regular set-in sleeves) and non-stretch fabric, it would be somewhere between "restrictive" and "painful to the nethers" to raise my arms (hence all the geeking on Grande Assiette and gambeson sleeves in the fencing forums). It's not just the presence of a crotch seam that holds a leotard in place--the design is optimized for flexibility in sleeve inset and fabric choice, too.

Still, I think what this really leads to is asking why don't our costumers integrate an undercarriage into the costume to help keep it in place? That's a serious question, considering the amount of Beauty & Costuming Forum space devoted to "What do I wear under this costume?" and "How do I keep this costume from shifting around on me while I'm dancing?" Our skirts and dresses almost always have some decorative banding at the hips which could camouflage the attachment points, so why are two-piece costumes with built-in underwear and dresses constructed on a full leotard base the exceptions instead of the rule? Figure skaters and ballroom dancers wear costumes that are a hybrid of skirt and full-coverage bottom, and their performance wear is also substantially embellished, so presumably they have some of the same issues regarding hygiene and second-hand resale value. What are they doing differently? Or is the difference that they just have a smaller bottom of their market, whereas we have a lot more people seeking something that looks like a professional dance costume at a much lower price than what their professional costumes sell for?