fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #5504 ]

[ SECRET POST #5504 ]

⌈ Secret Post #5504 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 26 secrets from Secret Submission Post #787.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

None of that is confusing. I guessed that, and I should have said that dress robes for men makes sense. What I really mean is what is the difference between female dress robes and dresses.

I ... don't recall HP ever implying that female robes are different from male ones? Or ever implying that females wear anything other than robes either. Why would you assume dress at all?

It doesn't. What's become clear over the course of this thread is that OP is just an idiot.

They seemed fine at first, but it became clear how dense they could be pretty quickly.

NAYRT
One is a robe and the other is a dress. Those are two different types of clothing. I don't really understand the confusion.

Different anon again, but I just got a full surround-sound flashback to Kronk's shoulder angel and demon from Emperor's New Groove:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmOc4GLq8xM

as I said above, OP, there is (or should be) a drastic difference between a dress robe and a dress but due to the movies, there isn't. The movies just put all the girls in prom dresses. Only the teachers (like anon below citing McGonagall's) had anythign close to what a dress robe should be.

idk what the fics are describing in terms of skirts and features but I'm sure most visuals default to the movies for a lot of people, fans and authors alike. it's a curse.

So what you're saying is that these girls in the book put on a robe with just underwear and danced in that? That seems far more risque than a dress, but all right, at least that's much funnier to think about.

This does actually come up in the books as a generational thing, regarding male robes. At the Wizarding World Cup, there's an elderly wizard complaining about having to wear Muggle dress, who showed up in a female Muggle nightdress. When asked to put on trousers, he complained: "I like a healthy breeze around my privates, thanks!" Hermione thinks this is hilarious. So it's somewhat implied that at least older male wizards absolutely are not wearing anything under there, or underwear at most, but younger ones, and those with more experience of Muggle clothing, almost definitely are.

Thanks for this reminder, that is enlightening to me! It still makes an aesthetic difference to me what exactly is being worn, but it does seem like it's probably something.

Wait, why is that risque? The robes would likely be full length with sleeves, they'd be less revealing than the dresses from the movie

The implication of robes, to me, is a waistline cinch of either buttons or a belt, so bottom is pretty free and liable to open (if it closes all the way down...that's just a gown imo). That's far more revealing than typical dresses unless they have splits.

Aaaaah, I guess that's the confusion! I always imagined them as like monk's robes, so basically just a shapeless baggy smock.

Okay. I got it. You're confused because you made up your own definition of robes. That's kind of a you problem though.

Not OP
But wtf are you on, robes can be different

OP’s entire point is that there is only one kind of robe.

There are different types of robes and if you're wearing one that's liable to split open you would obviously wear other clothes underneath. How is this so difficult to understand?

Given that robes are used as the school uniforms in the book, and are generally described as the standard dress for wizardkind, regardless of gender, I'm not sure why the dress robes are suddenly the problem, as opposed to the school robes or others, unless it's specifically the word "dress" that's throwing you off.

That... is an extremely narrow definition of a word that describes garments that come in a lot of different varieties.

No, a waist cinch is not any kind of prerequisite for something to be called a robe, though some are. Think: long, loose, baggy, probably fastened in the front, generally worn over some kind of inner layer, frequently very modest.

So if that is the mental image of a robe you're working with, why do your male dress robes not have this same issue? You keep saying they make sense for men, do you picture them wearing something more than underwear under the robes, and if so, why wouldn't the same apply to female dress robes?

So to you, the problem is that someone could see a girl's cunt because you think she wouldn't be wearing anything under her dress robes. Why aren't you bringing up people potentially seeing a whole lot of dicks too, since boys are wearing dress robes too?

And in your insane imaginings, this wouldn't be a problem for the boys because..?

I hate people who are intentionally slow, even if it's just an act. It's not cute and people in this thread are indulging you way too much.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #5504 ]

OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

OP

Re: OP

OP

Re: OP

OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP