In 2025, hardly anyone would deny that clothes carry meaning. They function within specific fields of semiotics (‘the study of signs and symbols in communication’) and thus establish a layer of nonlinguistic, nonverbal discourses. Such a process may be as simple as purchasing merchandise to communicate your love of an artist or a film. BOPs, however, require us to engage in specific themes: we have seen Shrek, British Icons, White Lies, and quite a few Saltburn themed ones last year. Themes like these supply us with inspiration but also put constraints on self-expression. In this article I will discuss the unsaid/potential/underlying “rules” of and assumptions about BOPs centred around Valentine’s Day or implicit and explicit sexual themes like “Anne-Sommers” (the St. Anne’s-Somerville BOP) or the ‘Rice Purity’ BOP in St. Hilda’s last Trinity Term.
But first, theory!
It is common sense that clothes carry meaning. However, over the course of my research I encountered several theorists who emphasise the role of transformation in meaning-making through semiotics of fashion. Though a bit dated, Susan B. Kaiser’s 1989 article expands on this perspective, arguing that “meanings of clothes, then, may be embedded […] in the process of constructing a sense of self in a complex and harried existence.” In the context of BOPs at Oxford, we construct our self-expression around thematic costumes – which visually interprets individual identities.
Kaiser traces several lines of communication through which the self is expressed and interpreted and ultimately concludes that “[f]or two-way, meaningful communication to occur, the meaning intended by a person’s appearance should roughly coincide with the review and interpretation of that appearance by a perceiver”, a process involving “visual and the verbal realms of communication […] give and take, clarification, and rearrangement of potential interpretations.” In college bars or clubs this takes the form of picking up on first impressions, asking questions, guessing the meaning behind a costume. BOPs are largely a visual medium, and we judge, appreciate and feel intrigued based primarily on visual stimulus.
As for ourselves, the dynamics of BOP fashions and dress codes mirrors Tim Edwards’ argument that clothing may represent “who might become. […] This in turn may be predicated upon the assertion of a true or essential self that has yet to be revealed.” Linking to those dynamics, Otto von Busch adds in his chapter on affect and fashion, that clothing also functions as “emotion played out through the senses […] and is in resonance with embodied social dynamics and interactions.” He highlights specific emotions like the desire for “acceptance and inclusion”, and “emotions of aliveness, such as seduction, adoration, and social power”. At the intersection of these perspectives there emerges the conflict of expressing an “essential self” which satisfies our senses, but which also resonates and is in some way accepted by a broader social circle. I would not think this conflict is an either/or situation, but rather a spectrum. It is this spectrum I would like to investigate.
Firstly, I will be exploring the cultural assumptions and pressures of Valentine’s-themed BOPs. Then, I will turn towards the more daring and somewhat controversial connotations of Anne-Sommers. Lastly, I will share my experience about an unorthodox approach to history: a BOP at Hilda’s with the theme of “Dress as a Decade” where the decade coincides with your Rice Purity score (here’s the link, if you are feeling adventurous…)
Dress to Impress
We are about a week from the 14th of February. Some had (or still have) Valentine’s in mind. Some may be riding on the high of spending the day with their valentine or galentine. Some may be thinking about Chaucer’s Parliament of Fowls (my favourite kind of people). College-organised parties were also abundant. Christ Church, New, and Magdalen colleges organised a megabop in the Town Hall; St. Edmund Hall collaborated with a number of colleges for a “Dress as Your Type” megabop at The Bullingdon; Trinity hosted their own Valentine’s Day Party. Less orthodox colleges, like Corpus Christi College and Lady Magdalen Hall put on a Y2K party and a Brexit BOP around the 14th.
Different contexts demand different looks. Busch (cited above) notes how the legibility of our appearance depends on “context” and is conveyed “through symbols and emotional priming.” Valentine’s BOPs therefore may prompt us to bring out the best versions of ourselves, the perfect outfit, the sharpest eyeliner and, crucially, a good hair day. In the context of love and matchmaking, Busch’s concepts of fashion are useful in reflections of our appearance and that of others. The choice between “vital fashion,” which encompasses “the passion of risk [and] the nerve to take a step into an emotional unknown” beyond the ordinary, and “barren fashion,” which largely complies with conventions, takes centre stage.
In a way, these BOPs are an opportunity for us to balance the relative importance of catering to more popular, mainstream gazes (whether male or female, or anything in between) and of going for a more daring choice that perhaps more powerfully conveys our authenticity. I am not here to privilege one over the other: his insight simply allows me to consider my choices of costumes and how those choices affect my social dynamics. On the one hand, participants of Valentine’s Day parties may indeed find great emotional satisfaction from expressing their authentic self through immediate, visual, nonverbal means of fashion. On the other, there is nothing wrong with taking delight in someone recognising and appreciating our self-expression. After all, relationships are only successful if both parties love and respect the authenticity of one another.
Although the underlying pressure of needing or wanting to attract someone on a Valentine’s Day BOP is palpable, or in fact terrifying,Valentine’s Day conventions, nevertheless, do not define all aspects of nightlife, as we have seen from the variety of party opportunities across Oxford. As long as you have the necessary connections to attend a wider range of college parties, there are diverse themes to choose from. Ultimately, context does shape our appearance, but it is reassuring to see that the student community of Oxford is by no means monolithic. If Valentine’s does not entice you, you are still free to dress up as Amy Winehouse or the lettuce that outperformed Liz Truss.
Judgement-Free Lingerie
The context of Anne-Sommers BOP’s theme is self-evident. As someone who enjoys visiting Ann Summers every now and then, I support this theme to a large extent. Nevertheless, I do recognise the limitations posed by the context of a lingerie boutique.
I must be transparent and tell you I did not attend Anne-Sommers this time around. I had a considerable amount of responsibilities piled up during that time and fell out of the loop for a bit. A friend of mine, however, organised a get-together which I later found out was pre-drinks before this event. When I asked them why they did not let me know, they said “I didn’t want to see you dressed like that.” Now, it is not their responsibility to keep on top of my social life, but this sentence stuck with me. Dressing like that means something is communicated. Something is communicated in the precise context of a lingerie brand. Despite my lack of direct experience, the semiotics of Anne-Sommers still intrigue me.
Edwards (cited above) writes about clothing as “the interaction of [materials] with the body.” He expands on the point arguing that “the sexiness of clothing comes from the mixing of hiding and revealing” which is underscored by the role of clothing as “language or simply a communicator of personality.” In other words, revealing attire may be conflated with personality, or personhood, but as observers we cannot take such assumptions for granted. At the stage of sexualisation, the significance of communication and consent can hardly be understated. The process of sexualisation implies that something is not inherently sexual, but that it is made out to be that way. Edwards uses metaphors of dolls and mannequins to illustrate his argument that “sexualisation is all about our terrors of female sexuality […] that the plastic […] doll might come to life.”
The controversy involving alleged plans to have an Ann Summers photographer at the Trinity Term 2022 event is important to mention. In absence of other sources, our team has found this oxfess summarising the controversy. A useful take-away I would like to highlight here is the crucial importance of safe spaces and consent. This BOP is a daring event, both in terms of fashion and sexual safety. Unwanted attention and forms of sexual harassment are unfortunately still possibilities even in smaller communities. Expression of one’s sexuality is healthy – exploiting someone else’s appearance for personal satisfaction is not.
Aside from this controversy, I would still like to express my support towards St. Anne’s and Somerville colleges. The explicit branding through Anne Summers establishes a clear context for the party, inviting, but in no way enforcing, participation. After all, many may find such events exciting, thrilling, adventurous after all the other days spent in Oxford wearing business casual (or sweatpants, for that matter!) If participants do not approve of peers “dressed like that,” they can simply close their eyes or not attend. Anne-Sommers, in my opinion, is an event to open the horizons of party fashion, and it is the responsibility of participants not to treat it as a voyeuristic venture. Lingerie does speak of sex and sexuality, but this brings us to the cornerstone of verbal consent–consent always remains the foundation of any sexual interaction.
A c*nty communist
My favourite BOP costume of all time is my ‘c*nty communist’ or ‘k*rvás Kádár’ look. I came up with it for the ‘Dress as a Decade’ BOP at St. Hilda’s College, which asked us to base our looks on our Rice Purity score. This advertisement was controversial. Many said it was intimate, too invasive, a bit ridiculous; others argued you did not have to share your score explicitly, or even stick to it when you chose your decade. I decided to do so because Kádár’s political activities aligned with my score, and I already had a white shirt, a miniskirt, and The Communist Manifesto in my possession. I did not intend to communicate sex per se with this costume, but rather an absurd, silly subversion of a serious (and harmful) historical figure. It was a great opportunity to involve humour in the semiotics of clothing and to take myself less seriously after a week of classes and tutorials.
Needless to say, János Kádár never wore such attire. But I could use clothing to transform: to take a difficult period of Hungarian history and show a sort of resistance. Though not many around me got the reference right away, they did still have a good laugh once I explained myself. Doje Kodzoman writes that clothing “is an extended dimension of one’s bodily self […] influenced by aspects of self concept such as identity, value, attitude and mood.” Silly as it may sound, the meaning I attached to the miniskirt reflected a resistant attitude to repressive Hungarian socio-political structures. I was very happy with my transformation even if it did not translate potently in the wider context of the BOP.
How you transform into an interpretation of yourself for college BOPs is, to an extent, your own adventure. However, dynamic social interactions do involve communication of meaning, shared semiotics and cultural references. There are values and structures underlying these cultural implications but, in my opinion, that only pushes us into circles which not only see, but also understand us. I would encourage my readers against harsh judgements made solely based on appearance, because those clothes (and more importantly, their wearers) have lore. And at the end of the day (or night) one of the great pleasures at BOPs are conversations about that exact lore: the little insights and ingenuities which participants have woven into their costumes.