Make honey, others don’t.

This was somewhat intended to be a review of the Resident Evil-movie series, which then morphed before fingers hit keyboards into a contemplation of zombies in general, then turning into a review of a completely different zombie-movie-staple (Night of the Living Dead, in fact) and back to Resident Evil. In the end, it’s zombies.

I hate zombies. Used to be a time not so long ago where I couldn’t see a trailer for a zombie-film without suffering really quite horrid nightmares for days after. Watching “Shaun of the Dead” even though I really, really liked it, meant not really sleeping for about three weeks. Zombies, they freak me out. I do occasionally sit through zombie-movies or read zombie-related material on- or offline, suffering the insomniac results, because it pays to keep track of the enemy, and to run through scenarios of an “break glass in case of zombie-apocalypse”-nature. It also, for such is my nature, forces me to consider the mechanics of zombie-ness.


Traditional living corpses, at least in mainland-Europe, where not needfully as freaky. They tended to be corpses that were “left alone” and therefore open for possession, after which they would mimic their former lives by trying to move back into their old homes, communities and, in most more icky cases, loved ones (yes, that said they tried to move into their loved ones. Think about it). The reasons they were “left alone” would be any of the usual things that would leave you outside the standard medieval community. Suicide, being a horrid criminal, going against the wishes of the local clergy, that sort of thing. They tended to result in being buried outside of the graveyard (get it, get it?) which meant you were *cough* wide open for any demon or otherwise looking for a place to stay.
Now, I agree, obviously, that this is somewhat creepy, but since traditional European animated corpses got Stokered into attractive, slightly but derangedly bisexual pretty things the creepiness swiftly dissipated, with the new breed of vampires taking over all the “living dead” symbolism of “just because it looks familiar does not mean it does not want to hurt you” and “we don’t talk about uncle Bob because of what he did which we will also not discuss but it can be contagious so stay away from what looks like uncle Bob but isn’t” (also known as “Fear of the outsider”, “Uncanny Valley” and “the monster in our midst”)

Modern zombies (and the term “modern” absolutely and irrevocably does not, in any way, shape or form, apply to zombies nowadays, but hey, license) have a completely different symbolic value. They actually represent not the fear of the slightly known, but the fear of being fully known. The great, blind, grasping masses that nonetheless have you completely in their power, and if they do get you, they get inside your head and take everything of value out of it, turning you into one of them, and all of them, in a little way, into something that is a little more you.

Less original movie-makers, even in their time, tack some sort of consumerist commentary onto the standard “there is tons of us, you cannot escape”-creep-factor but since we have, as a planet, accepted the tenets of capitalism a while ago now you could tack that little inkling of a good idea onto everything and get away with it.


So what freaks me out about zombies? Idiocy.

After more than a quarter century of having a brain that works somewhat different than the brains of most people I meet on a daily basis, I live in a constant fear that I am going to turn out to be more than slightly retarded but with most people around me thinking I’m being very brave about the whole thing and it would be callous commenting on my obvious problems, and only discussing them when I am safely out of earshot. And zombie movies bring home that “you are only a few steps away from mindless drooling, we all know it even if we are not saying anything” feeling to an extent that I can only assume my Shadow has been dead for ages but refuses to lie down for fear of being ridiculed. Strangely enough, only actual zombie-movies do this to me. Movies in which people merely exhibit zombie-like characteristics due to a virus or otherwise-invasion based affliction do not as such affect me at all, but as soon as people need to have died before shambling pitifully ‘long once child-filled streets and whatnot I am gibbering behind the couch.

But lately, that has been changing. And quite a bit, as evidenced by the fact that I have recently seen the first three parts of the Resident Evil-series without actually gibbering in fear even once. Gibbering in wordless anger, suuuure, and even in amazement in some ways, but not fear. Nor have the traditional dreams surfaced. This is always a bonus. Well, this is usually not a bonus, but this time, it is.



Something did get me though.
In the Resident Evil series, it is explained that the virus responsible for all this crap basically re-animates dead tissue with all their base instinct in tact, especially their hunger. And this is ok, I can get with that, even though we thankfully not see any zombies in full rut, and the zombie-folk do respond as a pack of very hungry animals, preferring to prey on the weak and alone first and only really attacking en masse. What gets me here is that we see zombies. Multiple ones. There shouldn’t be. Not really.

Ok. Zombies have an incredible hunger, and can still process what they used to be able to process. This works. It also stands to reason that they would try to go after things that they can most easily ingest, which is what every animal does. You go for the best average where it comes to personal risk versus gain. This ensures that it stands to reason that zombies would eat human. After all, zombies are basically made of human, and this would imply that human meat would have most of the building blocks you’d need. Also, when you have one cornered and worked to the ground, there is very little personal risk left over and you can eat to your hearts content. They are more nutritious than a chocolate bar and you don’t run the risk of being crushed by a vending machine you just tried to work open with your little ineffective zombie-paws. Combine that with the fact that being bitten by a zombie makes you a zombie, a nice and continuous string of infections and more zombies seems to be the only logical conclusion. Only it isn’t, because there is no reason to stop eating the other person after you have started. Even a zombie is still made of human meat and leaving it shambling around is just competition. So logically the first person to turn Z-side should have eaten the second one, and the third, and so on until they infected one that was bigger/stronger/faster which would then eat them and continue on. You’d have dozens of zombies, not millions, and a few piles of maybe animated but certainly just mushy and well-chewed flesh.

In the Day/Dawn/Evening/Twilight/Shortly before sunset/Whutever of the Dead series, it is somewhat established that hell is full, and those who die come back and inhabit their old bodies, albeit murderously insane. I am ok with this, as it clearly explains everything that happens in the movies given some liberties with basic tendon-strength, as most other issues have been waved away with a generic “they cannot re-die, unless you give them no body to re-inhabit afterwards”. In the Night/Day/Return/Whutever of the Living Dead (one word difference, entirely different universe) it is established that the zombies in question need the energies of living beings to maintain their own organic processes, preferably the brains, after being re-animated by a chemical substance. I am also ok with this, as it makes at least some sense. By all means humans are propelled ever onwards by some biological mechanism, and expressing this in a basic “energy” equivalent stored in human organs in such a way as to be harvestable by chemically altered corpses might be effectively ludicrous but basically somewhat sound within the confines of your story. I ask for no more. In this last example, there should also not be any other zombies, and to be honest, there aren’t. There are a few, but mostly contaminated with the same chemical (which is excreted by the zombies, in fact). It is also established that zombies can, and do, eat other zombies but that the return on investment is so much lower that it makes very little sense. This same argument is not, however, made in Resident Evil.

Even going from a starting point of a few hundred zombies with not enough time to start eating each other before fresh human flesh, which is arguably preferable over dead zombie flesh, shows up there are literally miles and miles of zombies who have had no chance of even sensing the human snacks that somehow just sit there and wait until a human pops by, usually in groups, and NOBODY eats ANYBODY. This makes no sense.

Retro-actively making the argument that the deceased flesh becomes immediately inedible or all zombies are part of one bigger organism that does not feed itself is obviously an option, and one that I cannot imagine the writers shying away from at all, but then why not give us that explanation in any of the first couple of movies? It would explain why zombies usually (but not always) stop attacking after somebody has been bitten, at least. So I’m sure that would be what they would go for to ultimately explain it but then what? What were zombies supposed to eat? If their new genetic make-up makes them attack humans only to propagate itself, a perfectly acceptable evolutionary action, what were they supposed to use for food? Never do we see zombies attack other species to then finish them off, they express only a mindless hunger for meat but nothing else seems to interest them overmuch.

I am going so far as to say I would accept the explanation that the virus only wants to maintain itself by jumping from host to host, uncaring of what happens to the host apart form the fact this host needs to be able to continue spreading, as most viruses ultimately do, but then why re-create them in the image of rotting corpses? Surely altering their make-up to make them all resemble skinny people with good skin that smell nice must also be on the list of possibilities, and would be a lot more effective where world domination is concerned. Or at least more fun to look at.

the bridal issue (2)

“Later this week” freely translates into “next month, apparently, but I have a sense of style, not time. So, on with the show.

Last time I promised to discuss the last few topics when it comes to bridal dresses, patterns, advice and friends. Let’s get cracking.

Patterns
I find it difficult to talk about tradition when it comes to bridal wear, as most of what we now consider traditional in the dress only really started happening in the last 70 years or so, which means that “traditionally” really means “before wedding dresses”. In that sense, patterns can be considered tradition, as patterned fabrics were a part of daily life and therefore used in wedding dresses.

The modern, tradition, however, shies away from patterned materials to an extent. You find laces, which are obviously but subtly patterned, and some applications of the decorative arts around waist, hemline and shoulders, but one does not really often find patterns, as such, in bridal couture.

Which leaves us with simpler pattern-based questions, or really, line based questions. Most people will tell you that horizontal lines are fattening, and vertical lines are slimming. This is, regretfully, false. Horizontal lines actually make you look taller, and vertical lines make you look wider, especially if the lines are really close together.

Now before everybody starts rushing towards the oft-neglected horizontal line, there is such a thing as taste, and most wedding dresses I have seen with a horizontal pattern seemed to lack a good deal thereof. The charming lady in my little image up there might look tall and statuesque, but imagine that same picture in yards of white satin and frills and it looks suspiciously less charming.

As with almost everything when it comes to fashion, less is usually more. Any combination of lines can be flattering, providing you follow the following simple steps:

• Your body cinches in around the waist, upper breast, wrists and ankles. If any lines are in your dress, they should be there. So your hemline, waist, shoulders and sleeves can have a definite horizontal line, either in embroidery, contrasting fabrics or thread. Everywhere else will more than likely make you look shorter.
• Your body has natural vertical lines in your legs, arms, and torso. If you already have a cinched waist, your legs will look longer, and you need to do nothing to make them appear even longer than that. The same goes for your arms, as the lines of the fabric will likely already give you long, slender arms. Your torso, however, might be in want of some help, as you have probably cut it in two already with a sash or the shape of a corset. If you feel your torso does not get enough attention, I would suggest going for simple corsetry or stitching, not straight up and down and in a color that in no way contrasts with the rest of the bodice.

This is bad

This is better



This is good

•  A straight thin line looks like a cut or slit, a broad straight line will distract from the shape of your dress. There really is no perfect width here but if you are going for a definite pattern, make it definite, and don’t wimp out on the last stretch, as it will look cheaper than just getting it wrong.

Your friends, and the advice you should take.

None, obviously, as this is your day and nobody is going to stand in the way of how you really want it and live.

But, if you do decide to take advice from anybody, avoid the following :

• Friends who are soon to get married : as they will either steal, or graciously allow you to copy ideas, and you might end up with two weddings that look too similar by half. Subconsciously, they will likely try to sabotage your wedding in favour of their own.
• Friends who have “opinions” on the state of matrimony : Need I explain this?
• Friends who are bitterly single : Again, you are not seeing this one yourself?
• Friends that make you feel somewhat uncomfortable in the area of appearance : Not just your too skinny model-friend, but also your slightly overweight best mate from college. If at any point during the picking of the friends you think “But I/She/He might be uncomfortable when I get undressed in front of them or try on several outfits” just scrap them. You will be discussing and trying on a lot, and you don’t need the aggravation.
• Outrageous friends : As you want timeless and stylish, not hip and happening but ultimately tacky.
• Sales-clerks between the ages of 20 and 45, and older if clearly unmarried : because they combine the annoyances of the outrageous friend with the persistence of a shark smelling a good deal. Even as a mixed metaphor, you should be able to see this is a bad thing.

Advice you should take :

• Mine : Obviously
• Friends who have been married for a while or are not “in that place” right now : They can have a clear eye unclouded by jealousy or subterfuge, and can bring experience and honesty without losing too much ground themselves.Sales-Clerks over the age of 45, clearly married or working in an established salon : they have experience, they have seen women get married before and if it is a good establishment, they should not be more interested in their commission than your happiness.
• Someone who makes you laugh : Not for their advice, necessarily, but bring them along to keep bride-zilla at bay.
• Your parents’ : Nowadays they will not be paying for the thing anymore most likely, but they have paid for a lot of things up to now, and they have a vested interest in seeing their little one look pretty, and jealousy or uncaring commercialism is probably far from their minds. They also have some experience, have probably been to some weddings with well- and badly dressed brides and can tell you what other’s did wrong so you don’t have to.



Obviously the lists above are not definite, carved in stone or immutable. You probably know who you are going to ask for advice and who not, and if it feels good, go for it. But from my first category I would take most things they say with a grain of salt, most definitely.

This ends my two-piece on bridal wear, I hope you find what you are looking for, or put it on and you’ll “just know”.

I am certain you’ll look beautiful, and radiant, no matter what, and if not, that nooooobody will let you know until yonks later.

the bridal issue. (1)

Two weeks ago, I gave you some pointers on how to arrive elegantly dressed at a wedding you have been invited to, with a swift cliff-hanger on bridal couture. Now we all realize that the world of the trousseau is slightly wider than one can easily cover in two paragraphs so I’m giving this another shot.

Wedding dresses are a big thing. They are on average ridiculously expensive, you will only wear them once (even if you do get married several times over the course of your lifetime it is very tacky to wear the same dress twice) and to be perfectly honest, given that you are dealing with a slightly biased audience, it is very easy to not really look as good as people tell you you do but you’ll only really find out when you are looking at the photos a little while later. And you’ll probably won’t mind anyways.

But I will.

So for my sake, let’s go over a few things that are easy to do wrong while shopping for a dress and how you can easily avoid a raised eyebrow from the fifth row messing with your head.

Fashion
Wedding dresses used to follow modern fashions very, very faithfully. And then flapper dresses happened, and two world wars, and when the sartorial and political smoke cleared, they didn’t anymore. For the last 80 years or so, wedding dresses have been modeled along Victorian lines, with long waists, bustles and petticoats and florals featuring very heavily. In economically more affluent years, fashions become sleeker, and in these years the Grecian lines come in, with high waistlines, clear lines and simple shapes with little decoration being the norm.

If there is anything in the world that embodies artistry, elegance and style, it is the kimono, a simple garment that has weathered every storm to come out clean, elegant and with the utmost respect and understanding of tradition. Wedding dresses should do the same thing, showing grace, purity and style, but also show that what you are doing has a sense of timelessness, tradition and respect to earlier generations.

Do not:

• Purchase a hello Kitty wedding dress (Google can find it for you), “the dress from that video-clip”, “The dress from that movie” or a dressed themed in a way that your mother or as yet unborn child would not recognize.
• Buy a “Fashion dress”, including short skirts, showgirl skirts or dresses in colours that are completely hip right now but will not be soon.
• Get a dress that is “Just like the one X had” whether X is a friend of yours, or a bridal magazine, or a celebrity. Your wedding is YOUR wedding, not a copy of somebody elses.

Do:

• Get a timeless dress that would have looked good and that you would have appreciated seeing in photo’s 50 years ago, and 25 years ago, as it will mean you will probably appreciate it after that time as well.
• Realise that a wedding dress is a uniform. The colours and shapes have been pretty much set. But as with any uniform, it is the individual details and chamrs that make it stand out. Nobody else in your life has your exact combination of features, and you would feel strange if they did. The same should go for your dress.
• Allow yourself to be inspired by dresses you liked, but mostly by those that were worn well by people who look like you. If you are not a 6ft Amazonian blonde, getting all your inspiration form photos featuring 6ft Amazonian blondes will ensure that you will not look good.

Form
Yours, mostly, should dictate the shape of your dress. As with all clothing, if it neither obscures what you have yourself nor pushes it into a new shape altogether, you are probably good. But wedding dresses are a little bit special in this regard, and allow a little leeway when it comes to the shape you are providing…
Do not:

• Overemphasize your natural features. If you are busty, do not also go for tight corsetry and push-ups, as it will just look cartoonish and cheap. Also, if you have the slightest feeling that people in your audience will think “Oh there she is again with her…”(and they will) you should adjust to avoid. 
• Overestimate your abilities. The run-up to your wedding is stressful and busy, and you will probably not go to the gym 17 times a week or stick to a very rigorous diet. By all means strife for losing some weight, but don’t expect to drop several sizes for the big day. Shop accordingly. 
• Underestimate your abilities. You probably have a few amazing features that a wedding dress will allow you show off to their fullest, and there is nothing wrong with allowing it to do so. Just don’t go overboard, or veer into tacky.

Do:

• Be honest with yourself. You could be a little chubby, or your upper-body could be somewhat long, or you could have disproportionate arms. These things happen. Don’t hide them, but find a dress that makes them less noticeable.
• Allow your personality to shine through in your choices. If you are a natural tomboy with no tendency for girlishness whatsoever, do not go for an enourmous frilly ball-gown. Adjust what you wear to what makes you feel comfortable, and pretty. Not just on of those two.

I am realizing this is getting somewhat lengthy so I am going to get back to the final topics (patterns, advice and friends) on wedding dresses later this week. Watch this space!

Wedding Style

There are, on a rough average and regardless of how often these occasions occur, about three circumstances where it is important to be timelessly, elegantly dressed, styled and behaved. These are those moments that are distinct links in time, and that are irrevocably linked to the absolute, unavoidable passage of time. These circumstances are birth, marriage, and death. And the occasions associated with them baptism, weddings and sepulchral ceremonies.


Obviously being well-dressed for either your baptism AND your funeral is mostly the responsibility of other people, and being well dressed for attending either a baptism or a funeral is ridiculously important as it is two of the absolute best occasions to sniff huffly at badly dressed people and being one of them quite distances you from this pastime. But weddings?

Either as one of the bridal party or a guest, people please.

While at a wedding you are, barring a few hopefully decidedly private moments, constantly surrounded by professional photographers (if you are lucky), amateur photographers (if you are not) or both (if the bride and groom are exceptionally cruel) and more than likely also submerged in a sea of broken whites, clear silvers and glowing ivories, so showing up in a fully denim outfit with your hair shaped and coloured like a cranky dessert is not just a bad choice but a bad choice that will be in photographs that people will still be looking at long after you, yourself, are in fact dead and buried.

So, how to actually BE well dressed for a wedding? You will basically fall into one of four basic categories, to wit : A male guest, a female guest, a male member of the bridal party, and a female member of the bridal party. There are, obviously, subcategories, as being a well-dressed bridesmaid is not the same as being a well-dressed bride, but as a rule of thumb that is your first decision: Am I a guest, or am I one of the bridal party?

As a guest, male or female, you have a few basic questions you need to ask yourself and somebody “in the know” of both the ceremony and the reception or celebration.

1) What colour will the bride be wearing?
2) What colour will the groom be wearing?
3) If applicable, what colour will the accessories of the bride and groom be?
4) What colours will the bridesmaids and groomsmen be wearing or sporting?
5) Which colours will the main decorations be in?
6) Will the ceremony be in a church, town hall or at another location entirely?

From here, it is very simple. You do not wear any of the colours that are the answers to questions 1, 2 and 3. If the answers to questions 4 and 5 differ from the first three, these are also off limits entirely except when explicitly requested by either the bride or her direct representative, in case of a themed wedding.

The answer to question 6 will tell you what mode of dress you should adopt for which part of the day, if the invitation itself does not already spell it out. If nothing is mentioned and you are unsure, only the bridal party will wear morning dress or full formal outfits, as a guest you are best of with simple, semi formal dress. If the ceremony is held in a church, be aware that it is a place of respect and worship, and therefore showing more skin than strictly needed, or in places that can be assumed “unfortunate” will be a source of both shame and gossip for years to come.

As a man:

• Simple formal dress, preferably two pieces, as three-piece is rather more formal than most occasions require. If you are planning to dance and the dances are not formal styles (waltz, quicksteps and slow-foxtrots are formal dances, during a wedding) you can consider a waistcoat or vest as they remain “dressed” even when you take of your jacket, vests or waistcoats should match the suit, but not clearly be part of it. If the dances are formal styles, you really should keep your jacket on, and buttoned, while dancing.
• A tie and pocket-square in matching, but not identical, fabrics that match the “feel” of the evening.
• Shirt can be white, and really should be, or ton-sur-ton on the fabric of the tie, when you know what you are doing and can pull it off.
• Black (and polished!) shoes
• Little or no jewelry. Remember, watches are strictly a day-time accessory. Cufflinks, however, can be metal or jeweled and even a bit “novel”.

Following the list above is not heavily exciting, but you won’t appear foolish, underdressed or like you have just come from work. Which you will appreciate, during the obligatory slideshow at their fifth anniversary.

As a woman:

• Simple sheath-dress, just over the knee, not too décolleté, or a long-ish cocktail dress. Full length is very formal, and should really only be worn by the bride and het mother and mother-in-law.
• No spaghetti-straps, strapless concoctions, or bow-tied halters. You are there for the happy couple, not for happy coupling.
• “Pretty” rather than “stunning” high-heeled shoes, with a bit of sparkle.
• The hair tied up in a simple chignon, or pulled back from the face in anything but a ponytail.
• Bare shoulders, open backs, stunning up-does and incredible necklaces and bracelets are the province of the bride, and just the bride.
• As are strappy shoes, garter-belts, stockings, heavy corsetry, jewels-in-the-hair, cleavage and other direct sexual references between ankle and crown. Sorry.
• A clutch-bag, but smallish and not garish or bejeweled.
• No opera-gloves, large rings, cloaks, manteaus, or other trappings of high drama.

Following the list above will make you look elegant, mature and more than likely incredibly attractive without outshining the bride. Which, let’s face it, is what you are aiming for.

As a member of the bridal party, your life is likely to be a lot easier than any of the guests, as most decisions will be made for you by a rather frantic young woman who is more than willing and able, and probably hunger crazed enough to boot, to simply eat you if you do anything that stands between her and the best day of her life. If you are a man, expect to be told what to wear, where to show up, and who to talk to during. If you are the groom, this counts double, as there will even be somebody telling you what to say during peak moments of today’s performance. Some people consider this sufficient practice for the marriage itself.

If you are a woman and not a bridesmaid, you are either the mother of the bride or groom, in which case matronly elegance is really all that is expected of you. You will likely be heavily involved in the proceedings so should have a pretty good idea of how you can look your best, but some pointers never go awry.

• Your clothing colour should, if you are the mother of the bride, be a darker or dustier version of her colour or accessories. Muted plums and purples for red accessories, darker blues for sapphires, and greens and browns if the bride is in emerald. If you are the mother of the groom, the same goes, but for his accessories. If the whole shindig is done in white, ivory, darker golds and silvers are your thing. Consider that in photographs you will likely be close to your child, and you want to look matching, but not like you copied his or her outfit.
• You are one of the few women who can get away with a floor-length dress apart from your daughter or daughter-in-law-to-be. Go for it, I say.
• Nothing overtly sexual is required, and you should certainly not flash any skin that might be considered inappropriate. Regardless of your charms, today is for somebody else to show of.
• Jewelry can be flashy and even somewhat outrageous, providing they are family pieces or gifts from the happy couple. If you buy new jewelry for the ceremony, keep it understated.
• Shoes should be closed toed, with somewhat of a heel, but steer away from boots or ankle-boots.

If you are a bridesmaid a friendly bride will have selected a dress for you that will make you look elegant and somewhat demure. Do not, ever, alter it without discussion. If the bride has allowed you to pick out your own dress, follow the rules for a standard guest, but in pre-selected colours, and a more upscale formality. As a bridesmaid, you can have a more spectacular hairdo and jewelry than the rest of the guests, but no more than the bride.

If you are male, you are the groom, father of the bride or groom, or a groomsman. You will likely be asked to be somewhat formally dressed, in pre-described colours. Follow what you have been given, but:

• Never dye or change your hair shortly before the wedding
• Do not get into fights or otherwise bruise or scar yourself shortly before the wedding
• Always learn how to work your accessories. No watches after 5 pm, a cummerbund is tied so the creases point upwards, and only Tom Ford should try to get away with a square-folded pocket-square.
• This is one of the few occasions where your accessories will probably exactly match in both colour and fabric. It is a shame. Never do it again and this will be forgiven.
• Black shoes. Always. No contest. If black shoes do not go with the outfit chosen : complain. But wear them still.
• Try to subtly, but decidedly, move the decision makers away form novelty colours and fabrics. Powder blues and shiny fabrics are not what you want to see in ten years time when you have to re-live your wedding. Do not risk your life for this, be subtle. This is real practice for marriage.

As the bride you are likely to be well aware of what you want, and more than able to make your own decision, informed solely by your mother, some close friends, every gay man you have ever met and a billion-dollar-industry of bridal magazines, shows, expositions, soirees, party-planners, flower-people and what not (made up mostly out of every gay man you have ever met).
But, some small comments before you embark on your journey towards the graceful and elegant vision that will stroll down the center isle of the church:

• A wedding dress made up of horizontal stripes will make you look taller, but also invite comments on the wisdom of horizontal stripes.
• The bodice of your dress should not elongate your waistline. If anything is optically lengthened, go for the legs.
• Cap sleeves are better than spaghetti-straps.
• No visible zippers. If you absolutely cannot be sewn into your dress on the day and have to have a visible closing mechanism, a row of small buttons is fetching and classy. If buttons are too persnickety, and they often are, hide the zipper somewhere in the material.
• During this day you will likely have stockings, garters, a garter belt, high heels, a constricting bodice, bare shoulders and arms, open shoes and some cleavage. These items are there to subtly keep in mind what will happen that evening after you have been whisked of by your husband. Anything else that will put the mind to the marital arts is tacky.
• Your dress should not be a copy of a wedding dress from any movie, video clip, book or illustration. With the exception of the dress and veil combination in “How I married an axe-murderer” which I think is too short, but gorgeous.
• A “Novelty” wedding dress is a wedding dress that you will deeply, deeply regret. As are most too short dresses.
• Speaking of copied dresses… A “showgirl skirt” is deeply unacceptable unless you have exceptional legs, and want to hear about them every time you show people the photos. Which means it is acceptable roughly never, regardless of how good your legs are. (You know who you are, Guns and Roses…)
• The standard rule: If it looks good on the model, it might not look good on you, but if it looks bad on the model, it WILL look bad on you” applies here more than anywhere.
• As does: “Just because you can get into it does not mean it fits.”

So far, so rules. Weddings should be elegant, classic affairs that you can look back on in years to come with a tear in your eyes and a smile in your heart. A tacky, novel wedding plan is an invitation to re-new your vows a short time later without all the embarrassment, and possibly with half the church filled with different people. Keep this in mind.