FUR: Wedding Furgonomics
Rimau Dahan
just got engaged (for the second time)--and this time, it looks like
they actually *will* get married. Which brought up some furgonomics
questions regarding the wedding.
First of all, dresses. How the deuce does one deal with a dress if one
has a tail? The bride's wedding gown might have to have a rather
strange zipper on the back. Ditto most of the bridesmaids' dresses.
However, two of the bridesmaids (being military women who would insist
on wearing their dress uniforms) would have it easy; their uniform
skirts probably have a simple tail snap at the waistband (like I'd
figured for pants).
But wouldn't having the tail hang out the back of the skirt look kind of
*silly*? Why not just tuck it under the skirt--but then again, wouldn't
sitting on your tailbone hurt like hell?
And while we're on clothing, the bride is part sand cat. Two words:
Ears. Veil.
On top of all this, the groom is an Air Force officer; and as such, he
merits an arch of sabers. This causes another problem--furries seem to
have such a wide variation in height, after all. Somehow, I doubt that
any of the ushers could be particularly large or small species in such a
situation; they'd look foolish, for one, and the couple might have to
duck...
Just some thoughts,
Rimau
--
Furry Peace! Not another brick in the wall.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ostrich
>
> First of all, dresses. How the deuce does one deal with a dress if one
> has a tail? The bride's wedding gown might have to have a rather
> strange zipper on the back. Ditto most of the bridesmaids' dresses.
>
female fursuits that involved a tail opening. I used tailored
opening (rather similar to an arm hole, with piped edges) with
a button-up flap at the bottom, sort of like the fly on a pair of
button-fly jeans. The zipper ran down the back from the neck
to the waist, like a normal dress. To put it on you undo the
zipper and tail flap, pull it on over your head, have someone
zip you up, and then have that same friend button the tail flap.
It adds another sizing element to the dress (e.g., an otter fem
would need a much larger tail hole than a cat) but otherwise isn't
a bit hard to do. I imagine if these were sold commercially,
someone would invent a clever way to adjust tail openings on
clothes without completely retailoring the item. I suppose girls
could use ruffles around the tail hole. You can hide a lot with ruffles.
--
-Ostrich! <") http://www.furnation.com/ostrich
Rimau Dahan
Ostrich <ost...@fysh.org> wrote:
> It's not that hard to do. I've made a ball gown for one of my
> female fursuits that involved a tail opening. I used tailored
> opening (rather similar to an arm hole, with piped edges) with
> a button-up flap at the bottom, sort of like the fly on a pair of
> button-fly jeans. The zipper ran down the back from the neck
> to the waist, like a normal dress.
My idea was the back zipper which runs down to the tail gap; the zipper
has to be attached at the bottom like a jacket zipper. (However, snaps
or hook-and-eyes might be equally effective if more difficult to deal
with...)
> It adds another sizing element to the dress (e.g., an otter fem
> would need a much larger tail hole than a cat)
(The matron of honor is an otter, btw...)
> I suppose girls
> could use ruffles around the tail hole. You can hide a lot with
ruffles.
Dorian's not much of a ruffly kitty.
-Rimau
Cerulean
>First of all, dresses. How the deuce does one deal with a dress if one
>has a tail? The bride's wedding gown might have to have a rather
>strange zipper on the back.
If it's not under the dress itself, it's almost certainly under the
train.
>Ditto most of the bridesmaids' dresses.
Well, bridesmaids' dresses are supposed to look preposterous.
>But wouldn't having the tail hang out the back of the skirt look kind of
>*silly*? Why not just tuck it under the skirt--but then again, wouldn't
>sitting on your tailbone hurt like hell?
There are very few times during the entire day of a traditional
wedding at which the bride or the rest of the main wedding party gets
to sit down. Anyway, here we're back to the chair thing. I think
chairs in a furry world would be designed for the possible necessity
of having one's tail tucked under, and would have deep furrows down
the middle, in addition to the familiar way chairs in our world are
shaped to fit our butts.
>And while we're on clothing, the bride is part sand cat. Two words:
>Ears. Veil.
Not a problem. If it can't go between them, it can be draped over
them. Flemish Renaissance fashions for women had those huge stuffed
horns, and veils were often suspended from them, so ears would be the
same only more subtle.
>On top of all this, the groom is an Air Force officer; and as such, he
>merits an arch of sabers. This causes another problem--furries seem to
>have such a wide variation in height, after all. Somehow, I doubt that
>any of the ushers could be particularly large or small species in such a
>situation; they'd look foolish, for one, and the couple might have to
>duck...
I think if the short ones weren't required to touch swords, but just
hold them up in the general direction, it wouldn't look too bad.
--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( uos7aN a>!W - ,,'poo6 hue auo ou op sjJnwS,,
Atara
>
> First of all, dresses. How the deuce does one deal with a dress if one
> has a tail? The bride's wedding gown might have to have a rather
No reason that the tail HAS to stick out the back. A real tail has
muscles -n stuff. If you've ever seen a dog curl its tail between its
legs, you know how flexible it can be. Of course, if this species uses
its tail for non-verbal communication, that might be a problem.
> However, two of the bridesmaids (being military women who would insist
> on wearing their dress uniforms) would have it easy; their uniform
> skirts probably have a simple tail snap at the waistband (like I'd
> figured for pants).
You know - I've always had a problem with typical pants design for
tailled creatures. The "tail snap" solution always seemed to revealing.
I mean, what happens if you bend over and the snap comes loose? Your
butt's hanging out in the open - might as well not have pants on at all!
A tail sleeve design would make ME feel much more secure. =)
> But wouldn't having the tail hang out the back of the skirt look kind of
> *silly*? Why not just tuck it under the skirt--but then again, wouldn't
> sitting on your tailbone hurt like hell?
Ever tried to sit wearing a dress that had a bustle? =)
It SUCKS.
You can't sit too far back in your chair, since you'd crush the bustle.
Rather, you have to delicately balance near the front of your chair. =P
I'd imagine that the wearer could shift the tail to the side - wrap in
(under the skirt) into their lap, and then sit that way - balancing on
the edge of the chair.
> And while we're on clothing, the bride is part sand cat. Two words:
> Ears. Veil.
Only a problem if you're having a full veil - which carried so many
negative connotations (for me, anyway.) Lots of brides today are using
little *pouf* veils, which are attached to the back of the head with a
hairband, or semi-veils that only droop down in the back. Check around
at some bridal magazines for other veil styles.
Also - does she have to have a veil? I'm not going to have one. =)
(...I'm far too well-read on this subject right now...)
--
Atara
"I've got a pantheon of animals | a t a r a [ a t ]
in a pagan soul..." -Rush | r a e x
http://www.FurNation.com/Atara/ | [ d o t ] c o m
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
that the tail must always protrude through the clothing. This isn't strictly
necessary, especially if the critters are of the "Tail as an extension of the
spine" variety. It can easily stay under the dress. You might even borrow
from one of those middle ages sort of dress designs where the skirt portion of
the dress starts much higher on the body than the hips.
When it comes to sitting, this might be another anthropomorphism that is being
approached from the wrong direction. Instead of trying to adapt the furry to
the human mode of sitting, it seems more likely that they critters have
developed a method of sitting more suited to their own anatomy. Maybe they
use something like kneeling chairs. Maybe they always recline on lounge
chairs. What affects might a casual (And space-consuming) sitting style have
on their society?
--
"if Marylin Manson has more of an influence on a kid than the kid's parents
do, then maybe the parents need to look at how they're raising their kids."
-- Charlie Clouser, Keyboardist, Nine Inch Nails.
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
William Earl Haskell
> Well, I think one pre-conception that is giving you difficulty is the idea
> that the tail must always protrude through the clothing. This isn't strictly
> necessary, especially if the critters are of the "Tail as an extension of the
> spine" variety. It can easily stay under the dress. You might even borrow
> from one of those middle ages sort of dress designs where the skirt portion of
> the dress starts much higher on the body than the hips.
>
> When it comes to sitting, this might be another anthropomorphism that is being
> approached from the wrong direction. Instead of trying to adapt the furry to
> the human mode of sitting, it seems more likely that they critters have
> developed a method of sitting more suited to their own anatomy. Maybe they
> use something like kneeling chairs. Maybe they always recline on lounge
> chairs. What affects might a casual (And space-consuming) sitting style have
> on their society?
As for sitting in a chair, I might refer to one of Scott Ruggles art posts to
Yerf:
http://www.yerf.com/ruggscot/lupking.jpg
...one of those backless Roman chairs.
mtmoleda
: When it comes to sitting, this might be another anthropomorphism that is
: being approached from the wrong direction. Instead of trying to adapt
: the furry to the human mode of sitting, it seems more likely that they
: critters have developed a method of sitting more suited to their own
: anatomy. Maybe they use something like kneeling chairs. Maybe they
: always recline on lounge chairs. What affects might a casual (And
: space-consuming) sitting style have on their society?
Actually, I have seen chairs properly designed for tailed people who sit
like humans. I would like to direct your attention to the first issue of
"Wild Frontier" by SFA.
ilr
>
> On top of all this, the groom is an Air Force officer; and as such, he
> merits an arch of sabers. This causes another problem--furries seem to
> have such a wide variation in height, after all. Somehow, I doubt that
> any of the ushers could be particularly large or small species in such a
> situation; they'd look foolish, for one, and the couple might have to
> duck...
>
Invoke that seldom-used field of scene layout known only as
"wittiness". Given their varied heights, people would expect the
setup to look goofy. So stay one step ahead of them and do the
joke before they can even ponder it. Place the shorties on kegs,
crates, or any other obvious height-altering objects you can think of.
-Ilr
R Greg Older
Some thoughts we had about clothing---
Skirts: tails are best worn under the kilt. When Dela is wearing a skirt,
the tail is under it. Notice that she doesn't wear tight skirts. Edith
does, but she is a mouse so the tail doesn't take up as much bulk. When
sitting in a skirt, the tail tucks up between the legs
Pants and Tail Clasps: Welocome to the wonderful world of Velcro! If it
pops, slap it together again. Make sure that it is done up in the back
though if you are hanging from a second story window though.
Dela does run into problems with some human seating. Notice that the
chairs in Sue's Dining room are the type with an open back at the base where
Dela can poke her tail through to sit down when she is wearing pants. On
the sofa, she has her tail curl up along side her and shifts her body
posture accordingly or lies back and has it curl up between her legs (a
posture that drover her ex boyfriend Frank wild).
Teflon Cougar
To put it on you undo the
>zipper and tail flap, pull it on over your head, have someone
>zip you up, and then have that same friend button the tail flap.
>a bit hard to do
I wrote a comic script with this type of thing addressed. The female furs
were clothes shopping. Of to one side off the store was a sign 'Seamstress
on site. Tail sleeve alterations while you wait."
-Tef
Teflon Cougar
>has a tail? The bride's wedding gown might have to have a rather
>strange zipper on the back. Ditto most of the bridesmaids' dresses.
>
doesn't show the characters from behind. If you don't actually show them
from behind you don't have to address this issue. Just draw the tail as it
would be seen sticking out to one side of the body.
>
>But wouldn't having the tail hang out the back of the skirt look kind of
>*silly*?
Not if you always grew up seeing it. Silly to us because we've never
(rarely?) seen it.
>And while we're on clothing, the bride is part sand cat. Two words:
>Ears. Veil.
>
If furs are the entire population, or at least a sizeable part someone will
be ready to make some money on the weddings. Therefore someone will have an
ear friendly veil.
>On top of all this, the groom is an Air Force officer; and as such, he
>merits an arch of sabers. This causes another problem--furries seem to
>have such a wide variation in height, after all. Somehow, I doubt that
>any of the ushers could be particularly large or small species in such a
>situation; they'd look foolish, for one, and the couple might have to
>duck...
>
I've actually seen real life wedding videos (Hmmm, my sister's for example)
where the bride and groom had to duck under the arced arms of some short
people. I've seen wedding videos on TV Americas Funniest Videos I think, and
the Marine and his wife did have to duck under the sabers. I think it was
his height that was supposed to be funny.
Besides, what's a wedding without a few "oopsies?"
-Tef
Wanderer
1. Wedding dress meets tail. Not a problem, really ... any competent
tailor in such a world will understand that such allowances must be made.
And drawstrings can be useful in some fabrics ...
However, sitting on one's tailbone isn't particularly painful, if done
right. The trick is to tuck the tail between the legs, thus allowing the
buttocks to cushion the impact (seen in the classic "sit").
(Please note that this applies primarily to short tails ... long tails, such
as those of many felines, are flexible enough to be tucken in a number of
positions.)
2. Ears meet Veil. Been done. All that's necessary is to give the veil an
"hourglass" shape, such that the "waist" sits between the ears. You know,
rather ike a mantilla.
3. Arch of sabers height problem. You think this hasn't come up before?
Happens all the time. The couple ducks, as a rule. After all, that's a
normal reaction, when passing through an arch of sharp blades ... isn't it?
Yours wolfishly,
The wedding-experienced,
Wanderer**wand...@ticnet.com
Where am I going?I don't quite know.
What does it matter where people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow.
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I*don't know!
Rimau Dahan
<27B5F2762CD8BCEB.9AB69514...@lp.airnews.net>,
"Wanderer" <wand...@ticnet.com> wrote:
> Before I move on to any other furries' responses, here are mine:
> However, sitting on one's tailbone isn't particularly painful, if done
> right. The trick is to tuck the tail between the legs, thus allowing
the
> buttocks to cushion the impact (seen in the classic "sit").
>
> (Please note that this applies primarily to short tails ... long
tails, such
> as those of many felines, are flexible enough to be tucken in a number
of
> positions.)
What about an otter? (The matron of honor is an otter.) Or a clouded
leopard? The tail situation could get awkward.
> 2. Ears meet Veil. Been done. All that's necessary is to give the
veil an
> "hourglass" shape, such that the "waist" sits between the ears. You
know,
> rather ike a mantilla.
Hmm, a mantilla. That's an interesting solution.
> 3. Arch of sabers height problem. You think this hasn't come up
before?
> Happens all the time. The couple ducks, as a rule. After all, that's
a
> normal reaction, when passing through an arch of sharp blades ...
isn't it?
It's not Julian's (5'10") or Dorian's (5'2") height that's the
problem--it's just that I'm pretty sure that one of Julian's flyboy
buddies won't be an usher.
He's a 7-foot tiger.
Rimau Dahan
"Teflon Cougar" <ed.s...@sympatico.WITHNOSPAM.ca> wrote:
> >On top of all this, the groom is an Air Force officer; and as such,
he
> >merits an arch of sabers. This causes another problem--furries seem
to
> >have such a wide variation in height, after all. Somehow, I doubt
that
> >any of the ushers could be particularly large or small species in
such a
> >situation; they'd look foolish, for one, and the couple might have to
> >duck...
> >
> I've actually seen real life wedding videos (Hmmm, my sister's for
example)
> where the bride and groom had to duck under the arced arms of some
short
> people. I've seen wedding videos on TV Americas Funniest Videos I
think, and
> the Marine and his wife did have to duck under the sabers. I think it
was
> his height that was supposed to be funny.
The "oopsie" wouldn't be the bride and groom having to duck. It would
be a 7-foot tiger 'morph in uniform, either ruining the continuity of
the arch of sabers or putting his arm at a very weird angle in order
*not* to--or the rest of the ushers, as someone thought of before,
standing on stepladders.
Rimau Dahan
kevin...@worldnet.att.net (Cerulean) wrote:
> If it's not under the dress itself, it's almost certainly under the
> train.
I have trouble imagining Dorian (a professional bodyguard) wearing a
traditional wedding dress with a train.
> Well, bridesmaids' dresses are supposed to look preposterous.
Which is why the two bridesmaids who could dodge wearing bridesmaid
dresses (one is a sailor, the other is a Marine) would wear their dress
uniforms instead.
> There are very few times during the entire day of a traditional
> wedding at which the bride or the rest of the main wedding party gets
> to sit down.
There's the reception...
> Anyway, here we're back to the chair thing. I think
> chairs in a furry world would be designed for the possible necessity
> of having one's tail tucked under, and would have deep furrows down
> the middle, in addition to the familiar way chairs in our world are
> shaped to fit our butts.
I'd thought of something along the lines of a gap in the seat back.
> Not a problem. If it can't go between them, it can be draped over
> them. Flemish Renaissance fashions for women had those huge stuffed
> horns, and veils were often suspended from them, so ears would be the
> same only more subtle.
Dorian in a *veil* which covers her ears? Only slightly less scary than
Dorian in a campaign hat. (I'll explain if anyone needs me to.)
> I think if the short ones weren't required to touch swords, but just
> hold them up in the general direction, it wouldn't look too bad.
I was more concerned with the very tall ones.
Rimau Dahan
> No reason that the tail HAS to stick out the back. A real tail has
> muscles -n stuff. If you've ever seen a dog curl its tail between its
> legs, you know how flexible it can be. Of course, if this species uses
> its tail for non-verbal communication, that might be a problem.
I was more concerned with how an *otter* would deal with the
situation.
> > However, two of the bridesmaids (being military women who would
insist
> > on wearing their dress uniforms) would have it easy; their uniform
> > skirts probably have a simple tail snap at the waistband (like I'd
> > figured for pants).
>
> You know - I've always had a problem with typical pants design for
> tailled creatures. The "tail snap" solution always seemed to
revealing.
> I mean, what happens if you bend over and the snap comes loose? Your
> butt's hanging out in the open - might as well not have pants on at
all!
It's a rather heavyweight snap--or perhaps hook-and-eye fastenings?
> Ever tried to sit wearing a dress that had a bustle? =)
>
> It SUCKS.
>
> You can't sit too far back in your chair, since you'd crush the
bustle.
> Rather, you have to delicately balance near the front of your chair.
=P
> I'd imagine that the wearer could shift the tail to the side - wrap in
> (under the skirt) into their lap, and then sit that way - balancing on
> the edge of the chair.
Once again--otters.
> Also - does she have to have a veil? I'm not going to have one. =)
Considering the dress styles I was thinking of, she could go with or
without.
> (...I'm far too well-read on this subject right now...)
Congrats.
Rimau Dahan
mau...@kendra.com (Richard Chandler - WA Resident) wrote:
> Well, I think one pre-conception that is giving you difficulty is the
idea
> that the tail must always protrude through the clothing. This isn't
strictly
> necessary, especially if the critters are of the "Tail as an extension
of the
> spine" variety. It can easily stay under the dress.
The matron of honor is an otter. How flexible, exactly, is an otter's
tail?
> When it comes to sitting, this might be another anthropomorphism that
is being
> approached from the wrong direction. Instead of trying to adapt the
furry to
> the human mode of sitting, it seems more likely that they critters
have
> developed a method of sitting more suited to their own anatomy. Maybe
they
> use something like kneeling chairs. Maybe they always recline on
lounge
> chairs. What affects might a casual (And space-consuming) sitting
style have
> on their society?
*Rimau snaps fingers*
*BOOM!* That's it! Either backless chairs with knee rests, or hassocks
(Japanese-style seating arrangement--always liked that, wonder why it
didn't come to mind before.)
*Clouded leopard looks down at her fur. It has been bleached.*
So that's why.
Rimau Dahan
"ilr" <i...@rof.net> wrote:
> Invoke that seldom-used field of scene layout known only as
> "wittiness". Given their varied heights, people would expect the
> setup to look goofy. So stay one step ahead of them and do the
> joke before they can even ponder it. Place the shorties on kegs,
> crates, or any other obvious height-altering objects you can think of.
I was more worried about a very *tall* guy who might ruin the
continuity. Guess all the rest of the ushers are on stepladders--unless
Capt. Teague (7-foot Siberian tiger) is the best man instead of an
*usher*...
Rimau Dahan
William Earl Haskell <for...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
> As for sitting in a chair, I might refer to one of Scott Ruggles art
posts to
> Yerf:
Wonder why I missed that...oh, that's why, I try to avoid Scott Ruggles
whenever possible.
Wanderer
<7pqmpso6chf3egp72...@4ax.com>...
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:35:50 GMT, Rimau Dahan <rimau...@my-deja.com>
>(Rimau Dahan) left the following spoor in alt.fan.furry:
>
>>
>> The matron of honor is an otter. How flexible, exactly, is an otter's
>> tail?
>>
>
> Mostly thick and muscular, imagine a scuba swim fin response in
>water -- the thick base moves, and the end attempts to follow, trailing
>some against friction.
>
However, it is still flexible enough to be capable of curling around to meet
the nose.:)
Yours wolfishly,
The otter-friendly,
Wanderer
Rimau Dahan wrote in message <8neet8$2qd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article
><27B5F2762CD8BCEB.9AB69514...@lp.airnews.net>,
> "Wanderer" <wand...@ticnet.com> wrote:
>> Before I move on to any other furries' responses, here are mine:
>
>> However, sitting on one's tailbone isn't particularly painful, if done
>> right. The trick is to tuck the tail between the legs, thus allowing
>the
>> buttocks to cushion the impact (seen in the classic "sit").
>>
>> (Please note that this applies primarily to short tails ... long
>tails, such
>> as those of many felines, are flexible enough to be tucken in a number
>of
>> positions.)
>
>What about an otter? (The matron of honor is an otter.) Or a clouded
>leopard? The tail situation could get awkward.
As I noted, long tails are generally flexible enough to be tucked in a
variety of positions. Otters often sleep nose-tip to tail-tip by themselves
... yes, the spine plays a role, but the tail itself is flexible. Jointed,
to be precise ... a long tail is a series of bones, jointed together. An
otter's tail is less flexible than a feline's (ignoring Manxes for the
nonce), but still perfectly capable of 'ducking' between the legs for
protection. If all else fails, a convenient hole, with a lace-covered
gather to avoid gapping, will do nicely for the matron's dress.
As for clouded leopards ... watch cats' tails sometime. They're as curvy
and swervy as eels, and can be easily swung around to the side. (Please let
me know if I'm misunderstanding the tail dimensions of a clouded leopard.)
>
>> 2. Ears meet Veil. Been done. All that's necessary is to give the
>veil an
>> "hourglass" shape, such that the "waist" sits between the ears. You
>know,
>> rather ike a mantilla.
>
>Hmm, a mantilla. That's an interesting solution.
I try.:)
>
>> 3. Arch of sabers height problem. You think this hasn't come up
>before?
>> Happens all the time. The couple ducks, as a rule. After all, that's
>a
>> normal reaction, when passing through an arch of sharp blades ...
>isn't it?
>
>It's not Julian's (5'10") or Dorian's (5'2") height that's the
>problem--it's just that I'm pretty sure that one of Julian's flyboy
>buddies won't be an usher.
>
>He's a 7-foot tiger.
>
Still not a problem. SOP for saber guards is to match the heights as
closely as possible for each pair of swordsmen. If you've got a
seven-footer, just match him as closely as you can and adjust the angle of
the sword to compensate.
Anything else?
Yours wolfishly,
The well-read,
Teflon Cougar
>be a 7-foot tiger 'morph in uniform, either ruining the continuity of
>the arch of sabers or putting his arm at a very weird angle in order
>*not* to--or the rest of the ushers, as someone thought of before,
>standing on stepladders.
>
>-Rimau
>
>--
So it is a military style thing then. In that case yes the continuity has to
be ruined. The holding of a weapon be it rifle or saber will be strictly
dictated. For example the present arms in our military at the end of the
movement the end of the rifle was in line with the man's eye. So if a tall
(6 ft) and a short (5' 3") person got put together there would be a definite
dip. It's just how it goes. There will be a strict method of how to hold it.
In the military we 'size' the troops. It's a bit complicated as a drill
movement but by the time were done the size difference is minimal because
we're grouped by similar height. So the tiger will just have be holding his
saber higher, but according to the rules. Put him at the end with another
tiger or like sized morph. Then you can at least have the last two the same
height, even if they're taller.
-Tef
Rimau Dahan
<F3C3CE526E8E1D12.34D2D572...@lp.airnews.net>,
"Wanderer" <wand...@ticnet.com> wrote:
> As I noted, long tails are generally flexible enough to be tucked in a
> variety of positions. Otters often sleep nose-tip to tail-tip by
themselves
> ... yes, the spine plays a role, but the tail itself is flexible.
Jointed,
> to be precise ... a long tail is a series of bones, jointed together.
An
> otter's tail is less flexible than a feline's (ignoring Manxes for the
> nonce), but still perfectly capable of 'ducking' between the legs for
> protection. If all else fails, a convenient hole, with a lace-covered
> gather to avoid gapping, will do nicely for the matron's dress.
I was personally thinking of an extension of a back zipper, perhaps with
some sort of ruffle.
> As for clouded leopards ... watch cats' tails sometime. They're as
curvy
> and swervy as eels, and can be easily swung around to the side.
(Please let
> me know if I'm misunderstanding the tail dimensions of a clouded
leopard.)
Clouded leopards have *very* long slightly fl00fy tails. Naomi is a
5'4" clouded leopard 'morph; she has a 3' tail.
> Still not a problem. SOP for saber guards is to match the heights as
> closely as possible for each pair of swordsmen. If you've got a
> seven-footer, just match him as closely as you can and adjust the
angle of
> the sword to compensate.
Meaning Julian pulls rank on some ursine second lieutenant. Gotcha.
-Rimau
Rimau Dahan
"Teflon Cougar" <ed.s...@sympatico.WITHNOSPAM.ca> wrote:
> So it is a military style thing then. In that case yes the continuity has to
> be ruined. The holding of a weapon be it rifle or saber will be strictly
> dictated. For example the present arms in our military at the end of the
> movement the end of the rifle was in line with the man's eye. So if a tall
> (6 ft) and a short (5' 3") person got put together there would be a definite
> dip. It's just how it goes. There will be a strict method of how to hold it.
> In the military we 'size' the troops.
I know. I've been on Piss Is...I mean, Parris Island.
>It's a bit complicated as a drill
> movement but by the time were done the size difference is minimal because
> we're grouped by similar height. So the tiger will just have be holding his
> saber higher, but according to the rules. Put him at the end with another
> tiger or like sized morph. Then you can at least have the last two the same
> height, even if they're taller.
Gotcha. Julian pulls rank on some ursine butter bar.
Chris Johnson
<rimau...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On top of all this, the groom is an Air Force officer; and as such, he
> merits an arch of sabers. This causes another problem--furries seem to
> have such a wide variation in height, after all. Somehow, I doubt that
> any of the ushers could be particularly large or small species in such a
> situation; they'd look foolish, for one, and the couple might have to
> duck...
*quiver* *vibrate* aaaiiiigh!
Sorry, you've just reminded me of an embarrassment I shall carry to my
grave and never, ever forget <:) My brother had an arch of sabers at his
wedding- and I was one of the ushers. There is a photograph of the arch,
with the bride and groom walking through it. Guess who is the only one
dropping his wrist and lifting his hand a bit to try and make the arch
wider and less inclined to lop off passing heads? Guess who is _also_ the
tallest damned person in the arch? *whimper*
Sometimes it's _pleasant_ to be peculiarly unique wherever you go, once
you've got used to it. Being photographed acting incongruous at the Most
Important Event Of Your Brother's Life is NOT ONE OF THOSE TIMES.
*whimper*
Just keep me away from military occasions for the rest of my life, OK? ;P
(rueful *g*- my horrible secret is out!)
Jinx_tigr
(aka Chris Johnson)
Jamie and Bridget Wilde
tail would be a point of pride with the anthro species involved -and
with the bride part sand cat, I would expect it to be. In this case,
the tail would most likely be not only exposed, but decorated in some
way - jeweled clips, ribbons - something that matched the style of the
dress and the personality of the wearer.
Which is another thing that hasn't really been addressed - what style is
the wedding dress? There's always the traditional poufy skirt/fitted
bodice, but narrow skirts are also popular - I myself was married in a
full-length cheongsam. Meanwhile, the bridesmaids' dresses (at least
for the non-military participants) could have any length of skirt from
mini to ankle-length, and the tail treatment would probably vary
accordingly. (My feeling is that if the skirt is longer than the tail,
there would probably be a tail-placket in the back. For a bridal party,
the gowns are usually fitted by the shop, and the tail-placket could be
sized for the wearer at that time; adjustable ones "off-the-shelf" would
probably have buttons or snaps spaced an inch or so apart.) For that
matter, I would not expect furry formal gowns to zip up the back -
buttons are better looking (and often used in modern dressmaking) and
are much less likely to catch fur in them. If I were a furry
dressmaker, I'd avoid zippers wherever possible...
:)
Bridget
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Come and see the fanfics and * =^_^= Want catgirls? =^_^=
food of Bridget and Jamie Wilde! * Visit our eBay Art Auctions page!
http://www.psn.net/~wildeman/ *http://www.psn.net/~wildeman/ebay.htm
Rimau Dahan
wild...@psn.net wrote:
> I think one point which you might also want to consider is whether the
> tail would be a point of pride with the anthro species involved -and
> with the bride part sand cat, I would expect it to be.
Sand cats *do* have long tails... but can you explain why Dorian would
be any prouder of her tail than, for example, an otter or a clouded
leopard?
> In this case,
> the tail would most likely be not only exposed, but decorated in some
> way - jeweled clips, ribbons - something that matched the style of the
> dress and the personality of the wearer.
>
> Which is another thing that hasn't really been addressed - what style
is
> the wedding dress? There's always the traditional poufy skirt/fitted
> bodice, but narrow skirts are also popular - I myself was married in a
> full-length cheongsam.
That's actually about what I had figured for Dorian. In off-white
(silver or ivory) damask.
> Meanwhile, the bridesmaids' dresses (at least
> for the non-military participants) could have any length of skirt from
> mini to ankle-length, and the tail treatment would probably vary
> accordingly. (My feeling is that if the skirt is longer than the
tail,
> there would probably be a tail-placket in the back. For a bridal
party,
> the gowns are usually fitted by the shop, and the tail-placket could
be
> sized for the wearer at that time; adjustable ones "off-the-shelf"
would
> probably have buttons or snaps spaced an inch or so apart.)
The dresses are knee-length or slightly shorter.
>For that
> matter, I would not expect furry formal gowns to zip up the back -
> buttons are better looking (and often used in modern dressmaking) and
> are much less likely to catch fur in them. If I were a furry
> dressmaker, I'd avoid zippers wherever possible...
What about frog or hook-and-eye closures? (Frog closures might be
especially appropriate on a cheongsam.)
-Rimau
--
Furry Peace! Not another brick in
Jamie and Bridget Wilde
Rimau Dahan wrote:
>
> In article <399ED804...@psn.net>,
> wild...@psn.net wrote:
> > I think one point which you might also want to consider is whether the
> > tail would be a point of pride with the anthro species involved -and
> > with the bride part sand cat, I would expect it to be.
>
> Sand cats *do* have long tails... but can you explain why Dorian would
> be any prouder of her tail than, for example, an otter or a clouded
> leopard?
>
Not proudER, per se - but I would expect her to want to show it off at
its best; I'd expect a furry bride would have her "fur" done in much the
same way human brides have their hair done, and that would probably
include the tail :)
> > In this case,
> > the tail would most likely be not only exposed, but decorated in some
> > way - jeweled clips, ribbons - something that matched the style of the
> > dress and the personality of the wearer.
> >
> > Which is another thing that hasn't really been addressed - what style
> is
> > the wedding dress? There's always the traditional poufy skirt/fitted
> > bodice, but narrow skirts are also popular - I myself was married in a
> > full-length cheongsam.
>
> That's actually about what I had figured for Dorian. In off-white
> (silver or ivory) damask.
>
Well then... With a narrow, full-length skirt, I'd expect the tail to be
definitely *out* - sure, she could sit with it between her legs (as many
have suggested) but it would leave something of a bulge under the skirt
that would probably ruin the silhouette. A narrow skirt is probably
easier to work a tailhole into than a poufy one. A "real" cheongsam
would have a front or side-front opening closed by frogs, but the
Western version is usually back opening with decorative frogs or buttons
on a faux front opening. With it back-opening, probably the best bet
would be closely spaced small buttons - probably covered with the same
fabric as the dress - and loops instead of buttonholes. If you wanted
it to open in the front, you could have a small opening in the center
back seam, which could be closed above/below the tail once it had been
pulled through with small buttons or hooks and eyes.
(Yes, I've been sewing lately - why do you ask?)
> > Meanwhile, the bridesmaids' dresses (at least
> > for the non-military participants) could have any length of skirt from
> > mini to ankle-length, and the tail treatment would probably vary
> > accordingly. (My feeling is that if the skirt is longer than the
> tail,
> > there would probably be a tail-placket in the back. For a bridal
> party,
> > the gowns are usually fitted by the shop, and the tail-placket could
> be
> > sized for the wearer at that time; adjustable ones "off-the-shelf"
> would
> > probably have buttons or snaps spaced an inch or so apart.)
>
> The dresses are knee-length or slightly shorter.
>
With that length, you could go either way, although particularly bushy
tails would probably need to be "out." My instinct is that tight,
fitted skirts would also need to have the tail out, again to preserve
the silhouette of the skirt - even the thinnest of tails would create a
bulge going down the center back. Also, if the design is similar to the
bridal gown, you might want to have the tail treatment done the same way
for the bridesmaids, just for symmetry.
> >For that
> > matter, I would not expect furry formal gowns to zip up the back -
> > buttons are better looking (and often used in modern dressmaking) and
> > are much less likely to catch fur in them. If I were a furry
> > dressmaker, I'd avoid zippers wherever possible...
>
> What about frog or hook-and-eye closures? (Frog closures might be
> especially appropriate on a cheongsam.)
That could be fun... :) It might actually be both - hooks and eyes for
stability, a frog over the top for decoration. (I'd think the frog(s)
alone would be prone to gaping, as they look best when spaced out
somewhat.
I'm having far too much fun with this...
Rimau Dahan
wild...@psn.net wrote:
> Not proudER, per se - but I would expect her to want to show it off at
> its best; I'd expect a furry bride would have her "fur" done in much
the
> same way human brides have their hair done, and that would probably
> include the tail :)
Meaning she soaks in the tub with kitty conditioner for half an hour,
then has someone (a masseuse?) brush *all* of her fur...
> Well then... With a narrow, full-length skirt, I'd expect the tail to
be
> definitely *out* - sure, she could sit with it between her legs (as
many
> have suggested) but it would leave something of a bulge under the
skirt
> that would probably ruin the silhouette. A narrow skirt is probably
> easier to work a tailhole into than a poufy one. A "real" cheongsam
> would have a front or side-front opening closed by frogs, but the
> Western version is usually back opening with decorative frogs or
buttons
> on a faux front opening. With it back-opening, probably the best bet
> would be closely spaced small buttons - probably covered with the same
> fabric as the dress - and loops instead of buttonholes.
I think I'd like the effect of the hook-and-eye/frog combo the best...
> With that length, you could go either way, although particularly bushy
> tails would probably need to be "out."
Or particularly thick tails, such as that of an otter...
> My instinct is that tight,
> fitted skirts would also need to have the tail out, again to preserve
> the silhouette of the skirt - even the thinnest of tails would create
a
> bulge going down the center back. Also, if the design is similar to
the
> bridal gown, you might want to have the tail treatment done the same
way
> for the bridesmaids, just for symmetry.
I was thinking that the gowns were all styled similarly, except for the
fact that Dorian, as the bride, has a full-length gown in white or
off-white, whereas the bridesmaids--apart from Naomi (the Marine, in her
dress blues) and Verity (the sailor, in her dress whites)--have theirs
in pastel or jewel tones.
> That could be fun... :) It might actually be both - hooks and eyes for
> stability, a frog over the top for decoration. (I'd think the frog(s)
> alone would be prone to gaping, as they look best when spaced out
> somewhat.
Sounds good.
> I'm having far too much fun with this...
Hey, nothing wrong with that...
-Rimau
--
Furry Peace! Not another brick in the wall.
Someone who knows, and knows it, is a sage from whom you can learn.
Someone who knows, and doesn't know it, is sleeping and should wake up.
Someone who doesn't know, and knows it, is a child who should be
tutored.
Someone who doesn't know, and doesn't know it, is a fool who should be
avoided.
Rimau Dahan
mtmoleda <mtmo...@goodguy.goodnet.com> wrote:
> Actually, I have seen chairs properly designed for tailed people who
sit
> like humans. I would like to direct your attention to the first issue
of
> "Wild Frontier" by SFA.
Never read it...