I have 3 banded tops which are voluminous that I love with skinnies or pencil skirt I haven't yet tried a voluminous dress x

What about the sleeves on this dress? Will this be fine sans belt?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/w.....168731522/

Yup, you have all got me pinned -- I'm a big fan of volume I'm not sure when this came about; perhaps after I had my kids and lost my waistline? I used to be an hourglass (12" difference between waist and hips) but even then, never felt the urge to define my waistline.

Like others have mentioned, it's about the drape and the cut of the clothing. Not every voluminous piece will be flattering on every body type. I like the way a voluminous top or dress highlights my strong shoulder line, drapes over my bustline (at 34C, not huge but on the large side for my height and build), and flits over my waist and hips. I like the tops and dresses to hit a few inches above the knee, lengthening my legs.

I do think we can get stuck in a silhouette rut, although that's not necessarily a bad thing. We find a flattering silhouette and stick with it. I like volume on top, and fitted on bottom. For some others, it's the reverse. For others, it's about defining the waist. But it's definitely fun to break out of our normal silhouette and see how else we can dress our beautiful bodies.

Let's just say that I can't appreciate the look on me. Voluminous looks add a lot of weight to my body type, while belted or closely tailored looks make me look slimmer and more nicely proportioned. I think it's tricky to wear volume if one is not either straight in the frame, small in some portion of the body other than the waist, slim, or small-boned. I'm none of those things. My frame is swervy-curvy, small only in the waist, tending to fullness rather than thinness, and large-boned. A lot of women have at least one of the things I listed going for them and can wear volume. I honestly believe I cannot do it without looking fat, since my combination of figure factors requires waist definition for flattery. The only exception is a voluminous skirt paired with a very tight bodice and waistband, but that's not the sort of volume that's in style.

I'm finding it interesting that "volume" used to be the only game in town when it came to maternity clothes -- even when I was pregnant, and my son is only 13. Now, maternity clothes are clingy and revealing and regular clothes have adopted volume.

Because I don't have much waist definition, I think I consider it a triumph when I can look like I have a waist, so volume doesn't do much for me personally (put me in category 2 on Maya's list). I have grown to enjoy it on others, though.

I'm not especially wedded to an hourglass look and I do like waistless, body skimming looks. I can't adjust my eye to serious volume, though. It's difficult to wear well and I don't like it enough to make a real effort. Voluminous tops seem less challenging than a voluminous dress.

It might be where I live, though. This is a very conservative area and I haven't seen much if any volume-y looks around. No opportunity to adjust the eye:)

This is one of those things that makes me start asking deep, philosophical questions about fashion; image; why some things are ok, appropriate or attractive and others are not; why that changes over time; what "modesty" means for different people and in different cultures; and a host of other things. It makes my head hurt.

It also makes it painfully obvious to me that I'm not particularly objective. I don't understand the appeal of purposely disguising that which makes us female. I guess that's it in a nutshell!

It's not like I see women in items with volume and have a really negative reaction. But I would say that 99% of the time I look and think, "that's pretty fabric/color/flourishes... wonder why she's hiding under it!"

I'm talking here about really voluminous outfits, not just a looser fit or a bit of an A-line. I actually tried on a rather voluminous top the other day, but it was sheer, so I saw it as an interesting extra layer through which my shape could still be seen. In the end, I still wasn't sure about it and put it back on the rack. :-/

That's an interesting perspective Jenny. I have to tell you- when you first joined the board, I thought the converse of you- "Why does she ALWAYS have to put such emphasis on her bust/waist/hips?" Of course, I have my own issues regarding this. (I won't even go into that here)Those areas are not the only feminine ones, though. Women's necks, shoulders, arms and legs are all vastly different than a man's, and can look really feminine when highlighted.

As someone who is into volume, I can say that it never crossed my mind that I was purposefully disguising that which makes us female, or that I was hiding under my clothes. I dress that way because it is comfortable, I like how it looks, and it does minimize my problem areas (I guess that's hiding something, but I'm sure most people like to hide their muffin tops and things like that). No one would ever mistake me for a boy though

Maya, I agree that being busty doesn't mean you can't do volume. However, I don't agree with those that say that any body type can wear volume. I am busty (32DD) and have a small waist. However, I also have very muscular legs, and particularly large, muscular calves. If I wear a sack dress I look about three sizes bigger than I am. I guess I *could* wear volume and just decide that looking three sizes bigger is okay with me, but that's not a look I'm going for, and it really isn't flattering. It hides my small parts and highlights my large parts.

The reason sack dresses look best if they are short is because they highlight a slim leg. I think that if one is busty and doesn't have thin legs, volume generally isn't flattering.

I've been buying dresses, tunics, and tops with more volume. Mostly to pair with skinnies and leggings

oh, Khris, the why of it is a subject worthy of many, many hours on a psychiatrist's couch! I wrote and erased at least three posts before I hit the send button. My self worth is very (maybe completely) wrapped up in my identity as a woman.

Yet again, I have typed and erased. I want to make it clear that I don't think I'm right or wrong or anything. My demons are my own and questions of fashion are much weightier and serious for me than I let on. I think that I shouldn't even try to answer such questions on a fun and friendly forum like this!

Oh I didn't mean for you to answer that- sorry! I just thought it was ironically funny.

And the plot thickens. Very interesting responses. I really appreciate the very heartfelt ones too - thank you, Jenny.

AJ, that pretty dress looks like it needs a belt because it's not supposed to be sack - something to do with the flounce on the hem I think.

Steph, I hear your point about sack dresses requiring a slim leg. I'd love to show you my client who got the look right with a chunky heel to balance out her strong calves.

Malcontent, the voluminous skirt and tight top combo is so much in fashion. I think it always will be.

At the end of the day, the reason I enjoy looking at and wearing the voluminous aesthetic is because it's different, playful and drives focus to other parts of the body. Count me as crazy but I think that's fun motivation! When done right, voluminous pieces are unexpected, sensual and liberating. Does that make sense?

I have two batwing tops that I love. I haven't explored it much beyond that. The tops feel great. They just skim over your body and hang elegantly. There's nothing to bind or constrict and I think they look more creative and bohemian than tighter tops (which I also like). I don't feel any less feminine in a top with volume, in fact the flow and drape of the fabric feels sensuous and relaxed.

I think it's all about balance, I wouldn't want to wear volume from head to toe or every day. But I like the option and I'm really happy I dipped a toe in it.

Steph, I think you hit the nail on the head. A busty woman with slim arms and legs might not look heavy in a voluminous top or dress, but a busty women with muscular calves and fuller arms will have a harder time not adding weight to her frame. I don't have the slim legs and arms to counter a flowy top or dress. My calves are several inches bigger around than my neck, and well over half the size of my waist because of my combination of large bones and participation in a sport that emphasizes squatting and crouching.

I actually like the look of some voluminous tops and dresses, and wish I could wear them. However, every time I try I am dismayed to find that my waist suddenly looks as large as my hips or bust, which is not a good look on a full hourglass. The ease of the look really appeals to me, but it's not worth feeling dumpy. : (

Steph, I do think all shapes can wear volume but some might have to work harder to make it work for them, and I can respect it if those women decide it isn't worth the trouble.

I love volume but I will admit that being a rectangle may make me biased. A lot of people have said they like voluminous tops with slim bottoms but isn't that pretty close to what a shorter dress is-- voluminous longer top with slim bottom i.e. nothing? The other thing is that voluminous encompasses *so* much. Eventually, a person should be able to find a voluminous piece that works.

I've learned to appreciate volume on other women when it's done well, but not so much on my own body.
I have to admit that I have a hard time getting used to seeing voluminous pieces on women who I know have super cute curvy figures with defined waistlines. It's easier for me to appreciate a voluminous look on a straighter (not necessarily slimmer) figure because of the way voluminous pieces drape on their bodies.
On my own frame, a voluminous dress or top adds a lot of visual bulk, and I feel terribly self-conscious. (I started a different thread on my own hang-ups with voluminous pieces, so I won't get into it here.)

I haven't ruled out volume - I bought a voluminous top in summer and a dress that I haven't worn yet. When it comes to hot summer dressing comfort takes precedence over style and I will be looking into them again next summer.

And yet to a large extent I'm with Steph and Malcontent - I think it often gets down to legs. My upper legs are the biggest part of my body and a style that reveals that part yet hides my comparatively slim upper half doesn't seem that attractive. (And I too love a full skirt with a tight top!).

Wish we could see those clients Angie was talking about.

Edited to add.
I forgot to add that I came into this trend with a rather negative image caused by 2 middle aged women I knew who favoured this style; and who made it seem prim and old fashioned (both of them were apple or had apple tendencies and had nice legs, so I suppose their legs were up to it)

It's about personality too, or style persona. Even the garment has a style personality. First you have to have the desire to try it, then get the two personalities to match up. The idea might not appeal to someone until they see that particular item that matches their style persona. It just happened here with me, only it was from reading that Angie has a client who wears a volumnous dress with chunky heels. Now that sounds pretty good to me and I want to try it out. Before this I just had a passive interest in the style.

Nice point San, a marriage of sorts:)

I must say that Angie and her protege Maya make this all so clear for me. All of my sac dress are silk so, Maya hit that one for me exactly..the fabric drapes and folds in all the right places and skims in all the right places..aha moment Maya ...Thank you:)

Also Angie stating the shorter length and neckline and sleevelessness another aha moment....It all came together perfectly ....for me anyway.

I have to agree with Kris in that women's arms legs, neck,shoulders... the way we move through a crowd, a turn of our head, is so innately feminine... in a well fitted sac dress the silhouette of your female shape is still undeniably visible and can be quite alluring, if that is a look you desire to project.