What constitutes vulgarity in relation to a costume?

[naiyahayal]

If this has been done before, I apologize, I haven't been here that long, but this arose out of the "I know we're not supposed to laugh at costumes anymore" thread.

That thread seemed to ignite so much passion on both sides -- mainly over a single costume -- the material in that thread begs this question:

What in your opinion makes a costume "vulgar". What makes it totally unacceptable in terms of vulgarity. What would "hint" at vulgarity. What is obvous and agreed upon by all of most of us here. What is "barely" (bad joke) acceptable, what is tolerated?

Is it the fabric? Is it the cut/ass outs? Is it the length? Is it muffin tops and boobies spilling out? Is it see-through? Is it what it suggests? Is it the effect it has on the viewer? Or Is it how it changes the intent of the dancer (that is one of the main criteria I base my opinion on) (does it change what she is expressing with her body).

I'm not talking about personal taste in styles here, or designer names.
Rather what defines "good taste". (Highly subjective, but are there certain criteria most of us can agree on?)

[zumarrad]

Vulgarity is in the eye of the beholder.

[*Shira*]

I'd have to agree with Zumarrad that vulgarity is in the eye of the beholder.

That said, if it allows me to see the flesh that normally is covered by pubic hair, it's vulgar in my eyes, whether the dancer has removed her pubic hair or not.

[zumarrad]

That said, if it allows me to see the flesh that normally is covered by pubic hair, it's vulgar in my eyes, whether the dancer has removed her pubic hair or not.

Warning TMI ahead!

But you know, the older you get, the lower that spot of flesh becomes...

[sabrinabellydancer]

imo:
a "family friendly costume" will not:
1. require a nudity permit for the city in which it is worn
2. make the audience nervous they will see more than they bargained for
3. show parts which are covered, even by the tiniest bikini
4. require constant checking and adjustment to prevent "over exposure"
5. show / flash panties to the audience, unless they are matching hot pants for the costume
6. the sexuality of the costume should not overshadow the dancer or her dance talent.
7. upon viewing the costume, children should never exclaim "mommy, i can see her [insert private area here]!"

i don't know whether these things make a costume vulgar, as everyone has their own taste. these are just my guidelines for costuming a "family friendly" show, which I assume should be the opposite of vulgar.

some very exposed costumes can also be very elegant. think, las vegas show girls with g-string bootys but fabulous head dresses. [not that i think that would be a good choice for traditional bd]

i think a lot has to do with the attitude of the dancer in the costume.

[sabrinabellydancer]

Originally Posted by zumarrad

Warning TMI ahead!

But you know, the older you get, the lower that spot of flesh becomes...

[Shaunte]

Originally Posted by zumarrad

Warning TMI ahead!

But you know, the older you get, the lower that spot of flesh becomes...

[Shaunte]

Umm, I think it's subjective or in the eye of the beholder when it's on the borderline. Some people don't like the boobs on the shelf look, others have issues with sheer fabric, etc.

But I think there are some standards that would all agree qualify as vulgar. IMO, anything that implicitly implies sex is vulgar. That silver snake bra and belt comes to mind. The snake coming from the belt is vulgar IMO. Pasties are also vulgar. A slit so high on the skirt that the crotch is showing is vulgar. A dancer with a skimpy skirt doing floor work is vulgar. The list goes on.....

[nasila]

Anything that shows (or hints at showing, or calls attention to) parts that should be covered by a bikini would be classified as vulgar in my book. I think Sabrina's #6 is good to keep in mind when costuming.

[Nat242]

As to 'vulgarity', I think it's pretty obvious (see the posts about exposure of parts that just should not be exposed), but when it comes to things like lots of cut-outs, bulging breasts, high slits in skirts, etc., it becomes a judgement call.

Personally, I think that belly dancing is usually beautiful and sexy enough without showing all that the goddess gave you, but that is my personal taste. If a costume FITS and flatters, than I probably won't be bothered by a costume, even if it is risque. And there is a difference between risque and vulgar, IMHO.

[Michelle75]

Vulgarity is definatley in the eye of the beholder b/c what some see as art others will see as vulgar. In my case vulgar in our dance is exposing areas of the body that aren't suppose to be seen (Vagina, butt, nipples). If at ANY part of your performance you can see the above, you would be wearing a vulgar costume in my eyes. Add to that a raunchy performance, you'd be a step lower than vulgar in my eyes.
So it all depends on each of us but I tend to think that the majority of us DO have a clue when it comes to costuming.

[Nisima]

Well, the Merriam-Webster dictionary had these primary definitions of "vulgar";
1. Belonging to the class of people of low social or economic rank (ignoble).
2. Depicting or referring to sexual matters ina way that is unacceptable in polite society. (obscene).
3. Opinions commonly held (as in: "The vulgarly held belief was that the government lacked credibility."

So this means to be that a "vulgar" costume is not only one that is too sexual but is also so low-class, tacky, etc. - hence the costume I loved to hate wasn't even that revealing, to me it was just tacky enough to be called "vulgar" becuase there were critters hanging all over it and it wasn't in any way cute or elegant. And then there is the matter of the lobster claw clamped on the end of one bra tip - that goes to intent, for sure. I could just imagine a kid at a restaurant saying "Mommy, why does that lady have a claw pinching her ta-tas like that? Some attempts at outrageous high fashion just belong in a fashion show but not on a concert stage unless it is an adult venue and then it might come across as outrageously funny.
There is the issue that even an elegant skimpy costume wouldn't be appropriate for a performance at a grammar school but then there is just plain tacky, low-class grosteque silly costuming that would only be appropriate for a comedy skit and if the intent is too sexual, then it belongs in an adult entertainment venue.
I'm not wild about grostequely silly costuming even if it's not too sexual, because comedy is such a difficult performance skill to do well, and if not done too well, it still makes the audience uncomfortable. Recently I attended a show where one of the comedic acts was this woman depicted as a cleaning lady in a printed housedress, padded out so much that her bosoms were swaying beow her waist and of course butt padded out so she was waddling around the stage wiggling her padded out butt at audience. The skit went on and on and audience was uncomfortable, mainly becuase it was so drawn out that the comedy got lost. I did think it was vulgar more because it was grosteque rather than overtly sexual.

[tahiradancer]

Maybe the question should be less, what makes a costume vulgar, but what makes a costume classy? There are costumes which on the wrong bodies, doing a style of dance with is not compatible with that costume, are completely vulgar. But on the right body, with the right dance style. . .

The best example I can give you at the moment is my 3 panel AmCab skirts. At 30 lbs overweight, wearing them in the traditional style with wide leg slits, not pretty! Floor work with the slits wide open, not happening.

Now, get me down 25 of that 30 lbs, this will change. And for the most part, no one will have a problem with it.

{{{HUGS}}}

[naiyahayal]

So let me throw this out then: (kind of off the original question, but....)

Can a skilled and talented dancer raise the level of an otherwise marginal costume? (could she hide or work the "flaws") Or can an inexperienced dancer lower the "classiness" of a great costume. (would the costume emphasize the dancer's flaws)
=
Or, put another way:
Would a really great dancer be pulled down by a not-so-great costume? (not be able to "save" the costume")
Would a not very good dancer be raised by a great costume? (would the costume help cover up her flaws, or emphasize them?)

I think the answers are obvious, but it's interesting to explore....

[zamora]

i found myself not viewing an all white pearl costume with red "nipple" glass stones, with the best of opinion....remember a long time ago, someone posted a hip scarf with a big red "eye" stone on the , ah ..bum hole place.???...i think there was something like,"you can not escape the eye!" thing written with it....
z

[naiyahayal]

Originally Posted by tahiradancer

Maybe the question should be less, what makes a costume vulgar, but what makes a costume classy? There are costumes which on the wrong bodies, doing a style of dance with is not compatible with that costume, are completely vulgar. But on the right body, with the right dance style. . .

The best example I can give you at the moment is my 3 panel AmCab skirts. At 30 lbs overweight, wearing them in the traditional style with wide leg slits, not pretty! Floor work with the slits wide open, not happening.

Now, get me down 25 of that 30 lbs, this will change. And for the most part, no one will have a problem with it.

{{{HUGS}}}

I agree with you except for the 25-30 pounds part. I'm not a tribal dancer, but I'll tell you, I've seen some gorgeous ladies out there with more than an extra 30 pounds and they don't look vulgar at all to me -- they are toned, fit and beautiful! And I bet you, if you're doing the moves right and project the right stuff, no one cares about those 25 pounds! (The slits, I see your point on that...) And I remember feeling very, very uncomfortable when a troupe performed tribal -- don't think there was an extra pound between them -- but I thought the costumes were ...well...not good.....it wasn't so much that they were revealing, but it was their movements that made the costumes unattractive.....

[naiyahayal]

Originally Posted by zamora

i found myself not viewing an all white pearl costume with red "nipple" glass stones, with the best of opinion....remember a long time ago, someone posted a hip scarf with a big red "eye" stone on the , ah ..bum hole place.???...i think there was something like,"you can not escape the eye!" thing written with it....
z

On the "I know we shouldn't be laughing at costumes" thread, someone posted a costume that looked like it was from "Target" -- so that's my point. Is it just horribly unattractive, bad taste, cheap materials, or is it truly vulgar because of what it suggests?

[mish_mish]

I agree with many others. If I can see what the gyno usually sees with a speculum--not good.

If I can tell what kind of hair removal you use...not good.

If I am sitting on the edge of my seat because your skirt has slipped to the point of crackage or vajayjay viewing...BAD!

If I am convinced your breasts will jump out of their sequinned casing...NO!

[Lauren_]

Originally Posted by zumarrad

Warning TMI ahead!

But you know, the older you get, the lower that spot of flesh becomes...

My mom's 78, she says after a while it starts looking like a balding squirrell.

Now, to clarify, that MAY have been vulgar.

[lotus]

YouTube - persian girl dancing and singing...