Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Calzaer · 06-25-2003, 11:20 PM

August: When your knee stops jerking, let me know. Just because YOU refuse to understand it doesn't make it worthless.

Quote:

This should be painfully obvious by virtue of the fact that fashion "rules" differ from trend to trend.

Um.... excuse me? Clashing colors don't change with the trends. Skin tones don't suddenly enhance clothes they didn't before when a new season's shipment comes in. The kernel is the same, even if the GUI changes. Thanks for trying to beat me over the head with the ignorance stick, I really appreciate it.

Quote:

Not to mention that a fashion rule is not something everyone agrees on by any means.

To anyone with three working photopigments, the basic rules are pretty immutable. Let me know when someone claims that red on orange is suddenly an acceptable combination for someone other than a highway construction worker.

(as you can probably tell by now, color is my area of specialization)

Quote:

Quite frankly anyone who follows a stupid rule like blah blah blah blah blah.

Yeah, says you. The guy who doesn't even care enough to get his facts straight assumes I'm going to take his opinion as gospel and start wearing ribbed undershirts and do-rags to class because it's more manly. Or something.

miss djax · 06-25-2003, 11:34 PM

lighten up, august spies....

the deal with white shoes after labor day comes down to two issues : first, white clothes are cooler than dark...meaning meant to be worn in summer, not cooler months..

second, dictums around clothing have always been around...specifically the shoe issue, with the emergence of a middle class, the first wave/precursor being the late 19th century then again in the 50's. fashion rules gave the nouveau riche a way to try and fit in to the upper echelons of society, or at least offer an appearance thereof...

good for cal for buying sassy peat linen cargo shorts on sale...and why do you care? my apologies to shakespeare, but me thinks the lady doth protest too much

my own interest in textiles and fashion started in childhood, when we were too poor to afford new clothes, and i got what my cousin was thru wearing....

anyone who says clothing is irrelevant or unimportant never had to wear hand me downs on the first day of school.....

there is also an academic approach to style, textiles and fashion. thorsten veblen coined the term 'conspicuous consumption' and posited that clothing for females were indicative of several things : the wealth of their husbands *historically* and their role in society. corsets and restrictive clothing that was popular in the late 1800's meant that the women would be categorically unable to work, or move around...this was to show the wealth of her husband....

fast forward to the late 20th century - power suits of the 1980s...as women rush to break the glass ceiling, collars and shoulder pads expanded to mimic the broad shoulders of their male business counterparts.......

shall i continue?

im a serious collector of vintage couture, and hope to have my collection in a museum someday..

its style and craftsmanship that matter most of all..i love my vintage bags i have bought for 2 bucks at sal's boutique as much as i dig my christian dior denim saddlebag with gold hardware....

get of cal's back....

what are you wearing, a windows xp t-shirt?

miss djax

August Spies · 06-25-2003, 11:35 PM

Calezar:

The rule we are discussing is:
white shoes after labor day.

This "rule" is silly and rather arbitrary. It does not compare to clashing colors imho. but...

Quote:

Clashing colors don't change with the trends.

obviously you didn't live through the 80's.

Quote:

. Let me know when someone claims that red on orange is suddenly an acceptable combination

I know people that wear that. And I know lots of people that wore it in the 1980's.

Quote:

The guy who doesn't even care enough to get his facts straight assumes I'm going to take his opinion as gospel and start wearing ribbed undershirts and do-rags to class because it's more manly. Or something.

If you are going to attack me by all means do so. But attack me for what I said, don't know down straw men. I have made no comments whatsoever referring to "manliness" or "effimenate"

what facts haven't I gotten straight bud?

But whatever you want to brag about how great you are at fashion while buying cargo pants from J crew. Case closed.

jig · 06-25-2003, 11:37 PM

This thread reminds me of the dating etiquette thread a while ago, only common opinion is against the 'rules' here. I suppose some people enjoy these rules and revel in them, while others see no point and couldn't care less, just as it was with dating etiquette.

While it's a bit off the mark to compare fashion rules to laws of nature perhaps a case could be made for comparing fashion rules to pure mathematics where seemingly arbitrary rules are played around with with no obvious purpose in mind. Fashion is just people playing with images that may or may not be practical in the everyday world and pure maths is just people playing with strict logical systems that may or may not refer to the real world in any way. Anybody that takes the rules of fashion seriously enough as to strictly apply them to everyday life is probably just as insane as that guy from the Aronofsky film Pi.

And not to stray off too much from the subject, I just like being sexual, period.

August Spies · 06-25-2003, 11:41 PM

miss djax, I think I am being pretty light about all this. Sorry if it appears otherwise. My comment that Cal would look better with Mr. T chains than J crew pants was intended as a joke. Maybe I just need more smiley faces.

I aware of the supposed reason for the white shoes/labor day rule. It is still stupid and wrong.

dictums around clothing have always been around...specifically the shoe issue, with the emergence of a middle class

Please kill me if I do something because the middle class does. seriously.

'conspicuous consumption'
I am aware of the term. i think it can be used to describe perfectly the poverty of modern society. Consumption based on apperances. You dont' buy a product, you buy an image. You buy what the product reperesents.

shall i continue?

maybe... cause I missed any point you were trying to make.

what are you wearing
A shirt I made myself actually.

Bunny Lover · 06-25-2003, 11:56 PM

Hello,

I've always enjoyed the male privilage of walking out the door with mismatched shirts, worn out jeans and messy hair. Not to mention little more facial preperation is required beyond a quick pass of an electric razor and a splash of cold water. That's it. And to top it off, it would seem that some girls actually like the way I (and those like me) look. Why would any sane male give up such a sweet deal? Facial creams? Painted fingernails? New age shaving gels? Shaving gels?

Who's responisble for this?

August Spies · 06-26-2003, 12:03 AM

Personally I don't know anyone that likes this fake look on girls. Super thin eyebrows, pencil line pubic hair, high heels, fake tans, wierd hair dyes...

but if guys don't like this on girls, or at best are neutral to it, someone must like it... i.e. the girls. So I guess it makes sense that guys would start doing the same thing to weasel their way into womens pants.

c'est la vie.

miss djax · 06-26-2003, 12:07 AM

im ready for the short bus in terms of using the quote feature, so PLEASE bear with me

Quote:

Originally posted by August Spies
miss djax, I think I am being pretty light about all this. Sorry if it appears otherwise. My comment that Cal would look better with Mr. T chains than J crew pants was intended as a joke. Maybe I just need more smiley faces.

I aware of the supposed reason for the white shoes/labor day rule. It is still stupid and wrong.

I posed the question to Cal as a newbie metrosexual.. an advance metro would have known the answer, which is : trainers are exempt, and no one else should wear white shoes after 3rd grade

seriously, they are hideous. im with kathleen turner in serial mom.. fashion rules have NOT changed...

sometimes some things are just ugly

miss djax :dictums around clothing have always been around...specifically the shoe issue, with the emergence of a middle class

august spies :
Please kill me if I do something because the middle class does. seriously.

miss djax:
then you will join me in my campaign to stamp out white shoes after labor day, and in general..i see half of the middle class sportin' those thangs..its not cute

'conspicuous consumption'
I am aware of the term. i think it can be used to describe perfectly the poverty of modern society. Consumption based on apperances. You dont' buy a product, you buy an image. You buy what the product reperesents.

ok, maybe...specifically tho veblen was taking about how the clothing of the woman specifically indicated the wealth of the man...

from thorsten veblen, the theory of the leisure class: an economic study of institutions, 1899

The dress of women goes even farther than that of men in the way of demonstrating the wearer's abstinence from productive employment. It needs no argument to enforce the generalization that the more elegant styles of feminine bonnets go even farther towards making work impossible than does the man's high hat. The woman's shoe adds the so-called French heel to the evidence of enforced leisure afforded by its polish; because this high heel obviously makes any, even the simplest and most necessary manual work extremely difficult. The like is true even in a higher degree of the skirt and the rest of the drapery which characterizes woman's dress. The substantial reason for our tenacious attachment to the skirt is just this; it is expensive and it hampers the wearer at every turn and incapacitates her for all useful exertion. The like is true of the feminine custom of wearing the hair excessively long.

in other words, women of leisure wore clothing that precluded them from being able to work.....the conspicuous consumption of consumer goods worn by the woman signified her husband was rich...

shall i continue?
august spies :
maybe... cause I missed any point you were trying to make.

miss djax :

i meant to indicate that clothing, fashion, and textiles were more than trifling considerations...... you CAN tell alot about someone by what they wear. historically, women showed the wealth of their families....

and now, for me, white shoes show a profound lack of social grace

what are you wearing
A shirt I made myself actually. [/B]

and thats the bomb......i applaud you!!!!!!

miss djax · 06-26-2003, 12:13 AM

bunny lover,

don't knock shaving gel until you tried it..i have yet to have a boyfriend in the last 5 years who didn't steal my conditioner, moisturizer, or kiehl's lip balm

its the same story with all my girl friends..in fact, we had this conversation at brunch this week - guys who pretend they hate this stuff and secretly use up all our product.....

i went to a wedding this weekend. i asked bride and groom what they wanted for a gift...his reply 'a facial'...

and by the way, some boys aren't blessed with naturally messy hair..its a look now, don't you now

miss djax

August Spies · 06-26-2003, 12:22 AM

miss djax:

Quote:

then you will join me in my campaign to stamp out white shoes after labor day, and in general..i see half of the middle class sportin' those thangs..its not cute

Hell i'm with you for wiping out white shoes altogether. In fact, shoe fashion (or at least sneaker fashion) is unbearable these days, imho. If I want a running/basketball/whatever shoe I don't want a 5 different colors, raised florcent green plastic crisscross paterns and sparkling soles. But everyone else seems to like these shoes so...

Quote:

tho veblen was taking about how the clothing of the woman specifically indicated the wealth of the man...

you are correct. Myself and others have appropriated the term for our own reasons though.

Quote:

you CAN tell alot about someone by what they wear. historically, women showed the wealth of their families....

oh sorry, I missed that. I agree with you here... though I am not sure its good.

Quote:

guys who pretend they hate this stuff and secretly use up all our product.....

I have never used hair goo, kiehls lip balm (?) or moisturizer (other than cases of dry skin) ever in my entire life. and I hate that stuff.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-25-2003, 11:34 PM	#22
miss djax Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: phoenix Posts: 342	lighten up, august spies.... the deal with white shoes after labor day comes down to two issues : first, white clothes are cooler than dark...meaning meant to be worn in summer, not cooler months.. second, dictums around clothing have always been around...specifically the shoe issue, with the emergence of a middle class, the first wave/precursor being the late 19th century then again in the 50's. fashion rules gave the nouveau riche a way to try and fit in to the upper echelons of society, or at least offer an appearance thereof... good for cal for buying sassy peat linen cargo shorts on sale...and why do you care? my apologies to shakespeare, but me thinks the lady doth protest too much my own interest in textiles and fashion started in childhood, when we were too poor to afford new clothes, and i got what my cousin was thru wearing.... anyone who says clothing is irrelevant or unimportant never had to wear hand me downs on the first day of school..... there is also an academic approach to style, textiles and fashion. thorsten veblen coined the term 'conspicuous consumption' and posited that clothing for females were indicative of several things : the wealth of their husbands historically and their role in society. corsets and restrictive clothing that was popular in the late 1800's meant that the women would be categorically unable to work, or move around...this was to show the wealth of her husband.... fast forward to the late 20th century - power suits of the 1980s...as women rush to break the glass ceiling, collars and shoulder pads expanded to mimic the broad shoulders of their male business counterparts....... shall i continue? im a serious collector of vintage couture, and hope to have my collection in a museum someday.. its style and craftsmanship that matter most of all..i love my vintage bags i have bought for 2 bucks at sal's boutique as much as i dig my christian dior denim saddlebag with gold hardware.... get of cal's back.... what are you wearing, a windows xp t-shirt? miss djax

06-25-2003, 11:37 PM	#24
jig Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia Posts: 448	This thread reminds me of the dating etiquette thread a while ago, only common opinion is against the 'rules' here. I suppose some people enjoy these rules and revel in them, while others see no point and couldn't care less, just as it was with dating etiquette. While it's a bit off the mark to compare fashion rules to laws of nature perhaps a case could be made for comparing fashion rules to pure mathematics where seemingly arbitrary rules are played around with with no obvious purpose in mind. Fashion is just people playing with images that may or may not be practical in the everyday world and pure maths is just people playing with strict logical systems that may or may not refer to the real world in any way. Anybody that takes the rules of fashion seriously enough as to strictly apply them to everyday life is probably just as insane as that guy from the Aronofsky film Pi. And not to stray off too much from the subject, I just like being sexual, period.

06-25-2003, 11:41 PM	#25
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	miss djax, I think I am being pretty light about all this. Sorry if it appears otherwise. My comment that Cal would look better with Mr. T chains than J crew pants was intended as a joke. Maybe I just need more smiley faces. I aware of the supposed reason for the white shoes/labor day rule. It is still stupid and wrong. dictums around clothing have always been around...specifically the shoe issue, with the emergence of a middle class Please kill me if I do something because the middle class does. seriously. 'conspicuous consumption' I am aware of the term. i think it can be used to describe perfectly the poverty of modern society. Consumption based on apperances. You dont' buy a product, you buy an image. You buy what the product reperesents. shall i continue? maybe... cause I missed any point you were trying to make. what are you wearing A shirt I made myself actually.

06-25-2003, 11:56 PM	#26
Bunny Lover Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 146	Hello, I've always enjoyed the male privilage of walking out the door with mismatched shirts, worn out jeans and messy hair. Not to mention little more facial preperation is required beyond a quick pass of an electric razor and a splash of cold water. That's it. And to top it off, it would seem that some girls actually like the way I (and those like me) look. Why would any sane male give up such a sweet deal? Facial creams? Painted fingernails? New age shaving gels? Shaving gels? Who's responisble for this?

06-26-2003, 12:03 AM	#27
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	Personally I don't know anyone that likes this fake look on girls. Super thin eyebrows, pencil line pubic hair, high heels, fake tans, wierd hair dyes... but if guys don't like this on girls, or at best are neutral to it, someone must like it... i.e. the girls. So I guess it makes sense that guys would start doing the same thing to weasel their way into womens pants. c'est la vie.

06-26-2003, 12:13 AM	#29
miss djax Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: phoenix Posts: 342	bunny lover, don't knock shaving gel until you tried it..i have yet to have a boyfriend in the last 5 years who didn't steal my conditioner, moisturizer, or kiehl's lip balm its the same story with all my girl friends..in fact, we had this conversation at brunch this week - guys who pretend they hate this stuff and secretly use up all our product..... i went to a wedding this weekend. i asked bride and groom what they wanted for a gift...his reply 'a facial'... and by the way, some boys aren't blessed with naturally messy hair..its a look now, don't you now miss djax

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.