#kind magazine

[cnladies]

WU XUANYI 吴宣仪 for KIND Magazine - Paris | October 2024

Wu Xuanyi: more photos here KIND Magazine: more photos here

[jessifanylove]

KIND_Magazine - February Issue 2023

[zoe-oneesama]

They're checking your insta to make fun of your outfits.

Ko-fi | Patreon

[indelicateink]

it's missing-jam-having-proper-photo-shoots-together hours

[marzipanandminutiae]

Hi, this is a bit of a shot in the dark on my end, but I have a fashion inquiry (and I apologize if I sound ridiculous at all; I’m a bit at my wit’s end).

Is there a good way to research forms of casual Victorian garb? I feel like I’m going a bad route by inserting the word ‘Victorian’ into any search because it results in rather fancy things (or modern twists on such that are purchasable). Would it be wiser to site dates in search? Is this going to fruitless?

Sorry for taking up any time if this is out of wheelhouse. But if you do answer, I really appreciate it.

I'll do my best! Focusing on womenswear, because...well, that's what I know best. But if anyone wants to chime in about the gentlemen, please do so!

So, casual Victorian doesn't always read as Casual to us nowadays. Standards of casual clothing- that is, clothing one wears for everyday life when nothing special is going on -were rather higher than we have today.

This is an illustration of matchstick-makers in London's East End c. 1871, done by one Herbert Johnson. The women have their sleeves rolled up and aprons on, but when they leave the factory (rolling their sleeves down, adding hats to go outside- which most of them would have done; it was part of looking Respectable) they might be indistinguishable to us from any other women of the same era wearing not particularly bustle-y skirts. Some of them probably have on the commonplace Matching Skirt And Bodice dress format of the era; others have on blouses made from the same patterns as those worn by middle- and upper-class women.

Also note that they have on ribbons, chokers, earrings...they're just like us. They like wearing things that make them feel Put Together, even though they're doing one of the lowest-valued, most dangerous jobs open to women at the time. Because people have always been people, regardless of time or social class.

And for middle-class women and up, Casual might be even harder to distinguish from "fancy" to us today.

This is a mid-late 1880s day dress with a skirt length suitable for lots of walking, from Augusta Auctions. Could not tell you the social status of the woman who owned it, genuinely. Probably not the absolute poorest of the poor, but beyond that...this is a dress you could potentially wear to run errands. Even to go to work, if your job wasn't especially physical. Because. I don't know. It's a Day Dress. You wear it for day things. It's not especially formal, because then it would be made of a more delicate material and probably have a longer skirt (unless it was a Serious Dancing ball gown). Possibly also a lower neckline and puffed sleeves, if it was exclusively for the most formal events.

The idea that a dress was "fancy" just because it had ornamentation wasn't really in their cultural vocabulary.

Here is a group of women playing croquet in what looks like the early-mid 1870s. They're just hanging out! Having a good time! They're probably middle or upper class, but that's what they wear to chill outside with friends- to play a lowkey sport, even.

So yeah, it can be hard to map Victorian everyday clothing onto our "jeans and t-shirt" understanding of what makes an outfit casual. They had skirts and blouses for most relevant decades, but even those outfits often end up looking formal to us nowadays because of what I call Ballgownification- the idea that, since we only wear clothes that look even vaguely like what they had for extremely dressy occasions, we assume everything we see of their clothing was dressy.

(Someone please ask for my rant about Ballgownification)

Searching for "day dress," "walking dress," "blouse," "blouse waist," and "shirtwaist" (the last for the late 19th-early 20th century when that term became commonplace) might help. Best of luck!

[hqbits]

Gothams heartthrob!

w/o text and ref :))

[bitchslapblastoids]

having a hard time seeing how it’s invasive to ask about their relationship status esp when I feel like it was asked pretty tactfully and their whole brand is now one another/their whole joint Thing and these days they basically turn on the camera and film 15 mins of horseshit to send to an editor but we eat it up bc they’re so busy hearteyesing one another the whole video that we don’t even notice/care that it’s mostly horseshit content plus they’re now doing a tour about the whole joint Thing and their whole horned up history which is the reason they’re even doing this press and there’s rly no more smoke and mirrors around discussing #phan bc how open will the door be so there’s only one remaining question so it seems goofy to not ask tbh

[walking-circles]

i cant tell things apart ! i dont know where they start !

[retroscifiart]

Cover art by Ralph Fowler for RBCC magazine April 1978

[saiyanmazen]

In DB Bulma opens her father's capsule and finds it littered with explicit magazines.

Bulma: Are there no decent men on this planet?!

In space:

[piovascosimo]

rockin' on july 1998 | beastie boys

[jessifanylove]

KIND_Magazine - February Issue 2023

[tanlotts]

Detectives 🖤

[sundered-souls]

The Viera calls out your name. What do you do?

[phantomsf0rever]

oh to be a journalist interviewing the most doomed woman in new jersey about her cute little outfits...

i hope tumblr doesn't compress her... i usually use big canvases and it turns out fine but this file was particularly diabolical