Clothing in Spaaaaaaace!

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by wellspring

Not just odd. It strikes me as very, very sad.

Depending on the leggings, the legs may still be displayed effectively.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Sindri

The one change rule isn't adamant. There are examples with two necessary changes (especially if FTL is one of them.) for the desired setting that are still portrayed reasonably. The important thing is that unless the setting has wildly different physical laws adding changes at the drop of a hat is neither necessary nor desirable.

An important note: I believe the "one impossibility" suggestion was developed in the context of classic science fiction, where the focus was frequently on the implications of said impossibility. At least as far back as ST:TOS, science fiction has been more about traditional stories told in a science fictional milieu than about the engineering.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by RyanW

An important note: I believe the "one impossibility" suggestion was developed in the context of classic science fiction, where the focus was frequently on the implications of said impossibility. At least as far back as ST:TOS, science fiction has been more about traditional stories told in a science fictional milieu than about the engineering.

More about? It might include more stories like that but what science fiction is about is not determined by what happens to be more numerous. Aside from that while stories actively informed by engineering are less common there is still a substantial amount of stories that are based on the consequences of technology. Even without any interest in realism impossibilities should not be added without reason because unnecessary elements should not be added in general.

The rule is applicable beyond it's historical basis.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

Not that odd. Consider this the skirt/dress vs pants when looked at as feminine vs masculine. The look at from warm and mobility issue. Skirt + leggings gives back the mobility and warm while remaining a feminine outfit.

I think Scotsmen would like to have a word with you about the feminine aspect of "skirts" and "dresses".

[Sword-dancer]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Leading to visits from the literal "Fashion Police":
"Sir, our records indicate that you wore an unlicensed suit from the Spring 2203 Noir catalog. Please disable all Augmented Reality and Smart Matter devices and come with us."

or paying a flatrate to change your outfit to the fashions at whim?

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I think Scotsmen would like to have a word with you about the feminine aspect of "skirts" and "dresses".

they're not the culture that brought us skirts + leggings so their opinion on it is irrelevant.

[Jovus]

After all, No True Scotsman would wear leggings with his kilt!

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

Remember the miniskirt-legging combo? That alway struck me, objectively, as rather odd (wear a dress designed to show off the legs, and cover the legs anyway.)

Originally Posted by wellspring

Not just odd. It strikes me as very, very sad.

Originally Posted by roguebfl

Not that odd. Consider this the skirt/dress vs pants when looked at as feminine vs masculine. The look at from warm and mobility issue. Skirt + leggings gives back the mobility and warm while remaining a feminine outfit.

80's child checking in here: It's a brilliant compromise position for teenagers looking to try to scandalize their parents without getting grounded.

The thick opaque tights or leggings with stirrups + Miniskirt combo is far more revealing than slacks or the contemporary baggy 80s rapper pants for boys. Like Hose in the Elizebethan area, they show off every curve of your legs.

However, they hide your complexion so any funny spots are concealed, shaving your legs becomes far less critical, and you're still able to argue with your parents that you're still wearing pants. It's also much warmer than miniskirt+nothing but panties (or nothing at all).

Of course, the 80's generation were children of 60s and 70s parents, who invented the miniskirt. In actual practice it seems a lot of moms remembered that, and thought the whole leggings thing to be somewhere between funny and adorable.

The baggy legwarmers on the other hand were just an attempt to balance out the incredibly baggy sweater/tunic with the tight waist belt struggling to define your middle in there somewhere. Same opaque tights, no miniskirt (the huge sweater/tunic serves as a short dress), and without either huge boots or the baggy legwarmers, your legs would look like ridiculous pipe cleaners holding up a melting egg.

It all made some sense. It was also all very stupid looking. :D

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Bruno

...

It all made some sense. It was also all very stupid looking. :D

All fashion is stupid looking to those not into the right scene.

For example, I hate men's suits. They are restrictive, even when tailored, horrifically hot, heavy, and expensive for no purpose.

[Dammann]

Well there is a social purpose. Suits are meant to signal something (affluence, reliability, respect, professional standards, or whatever). I agree that they are not suitable for rockclimbing or working on cars, though. Even the expense is meaningful in certain contexts aside from any CF associated with actual quality.