or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › What's the point of this all?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What's the point of this all?

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 
A random question: Lurking around StyleForum, I get the sense that people are to a larger extent concerned about the quality of their clothes than about their appearance. Am I only person who wonders what's the point of this all when there are people wearing blue buttondowns and khakis who would look better than some of us attired at our finest? This random post is due to me feeling unusually ugly today But tomorrow .... tomorrow, things will be better and I will cease to start meaningless threads.
post #2 of 32
Quote:
But tomorrow .... tomorrow, things will be better and I will cease to start meaningless threads.
I'm also told that the sun will come out. Bet your bottom dollar.
post #3 of 32
A good question actually, but I'll have to come back to it.
post #4 of 32
People ask why I like mechanical watches more than digital, which can be far more accurate. My answer? In a world where so much of what we do is mechanized, computerized or automated that being able to wear/handle/appreciate something that was built with the pure craftsmanship of the human hand is a rare pleasure, and something worth seeking out. -s
post #5 of 32
Thread Starter 
Please don't interpet my initial post as immature whinning (although I have to say it really sounds like I am). The truth is: clothing can only do so much. Plain good genes/physically fitness/grooming/skin condition are infinitely more important than good clothes in being attractive and presenting a positive image to others. So in the end: what's the use really? So many people spend tons of money in clothes; some of these go to logowear; and most end up buying awfully vulgar and excessively complex outfits -- ignoring the principle of understatement -- and end up just trying too hard. And on the other hand there are people who look effortlessly good in standard issue garments (Polo blue button-down shirt + Dockers khakis). Given that, shouldn't we focus more energy on grooming/fitness/skin care and less on clothing?
post #6 of 32
Quote:
The truth is: clothing can only do so much. Plain good genes/physically fitness/grooming/skin condition are infinitely more important than good clothes in being attractive and presenting a positive image to others.  ... Given that, shouldn't we focus more energy on grooming/fitness/skin care and less on clothing?
Who says that we don't focus energy on those things?  I just don't discuss them here because this is the style forum, not the fitness forum. Besides, your assertion that genes/fitness/grooming/skin are infinitely more important than clothes is wrong.
post #7 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Who says that we don't focus energy on those things?  I just don't discuss them here because this is the style forum, not the fitness forum. Besides, your assertion that genes/fitness/grooming/skin are infinitely more important than clothes is wrong.
Yes, that's true. But do you feel that the discussion at StyleForum has tended to focus on the quality of garments versus how certain garments may make someone look more attractive? Not to say that the latter is nonexistent but the former is simply more common. But I still do believe that genes, fitness, grooming and skin condition are infinitely more important than clothes. This statement won't get me banned, will it? Cheers
post #8 of 32
Quote:
But I still do believe that genes, fitness, grooming and skin condition are infinitely more important than clothes. This statement won't get me banned, will it?
When you look at someone, what do you see? A head and two hands. The other 90% is clothes and shoes. Just a theory.
post #9 of 32
Quote:
But do you feel that the discussion at StyleForum has tended to focus on the quality of garments versus how certain garments may make someone look more attractive? Not to say that the latter is nonexistent but the former is simply more common.
I've seen lots of discussions about the aesthetics of certain items of clothing, suits especially.  Quality often contributes to aesthetics in that a quality material often looks better than its cheaper alternative.  Besides, I think a lot of us appreciate the workmanship involved in a quality piece and don't have as a primary concern the perception of attractiveness.  After all, we've beaten to death of the topics of the informality and slovenliness of the average man.  What many of us would consider appropriate or stylish would be considered stodgy or overly formal by most people.
post #10 of 32
Quote:
But I still do believe that genes, fitness, grooming and skin condition are infinitely more important than clothes.
I think we all take for granted that fitness, grooming, and other aspects of physical health are more important than clothes. In most cases, we came here believing that. Those are prerequisites. Clothes are the icing on the cake. The Style Forum is Icing School. And the last time I checked, there were no bespoke genemakers available except for the unborn. Hence, I have chosen to ignore what others may choose to consider an elitist suggestion.
post #11 of 32
Quote:
And on the other hand there are people who look effortlessly good in standard issue garments (Polo blue button-down shirt + Dockers khakis).
Sorry for being such an a**, but it really depends on your definition of 'looking good'. I think the aim of our pursuit is elegance. I don't think anyone of us here ever said that Dockers, jeans, sneakers, etc., are not good --- in fact, ask T4phage, sneakers are incredibly comfortable (in his latest spectator sneaker thread). Looking good, in general, sure (especially on T4phage). Elegance? Maybe not.
post #12 of 32
Quote:
.... And the last time I checked, there were no bespoke genemakers available except for the unborn. Hence, I have chosen to ignore what others may choose to consider an elitist suggestion.
attraction and subsequent procreation are the 'traditional' bespoke genemakers. stay tuned as biotech begins whittling away at the problems of disease, aging, obesity, etc...
post #13 of 32
I am sympathetic, but I would suggest that a great suit, cut well and accessorized or even well styled casual clothes do a lot to help appearance. The vast majority of us may not be pretty, but we are, hopefully, well-dressed. However, I think that the point in somewhat different. I suspect that for a number of us the pleasure in good clothing comes less from dressing for others than dressing for ourselves. I enjoy the feel, fit, and look of a good shirt and recognize fully that 99% of my fellow Americans are not going to appreciate the difference.
post #14 of 32
Sorry new yorker, if you thought I was being flip. Just trying to crack a joke. I'll sometimes kick into a showtune if the staff has had a really bad go of it. You sounded like you needed a pick me up. For me, the world has become a bit too rude. Manners and Entertaining are becoming lost arts. I'm private by nature, and don't have the social grace of others, but the easy manner of my parents generation seems to have been lost even among the best I know. Too casual, too much "hanging out". The world has also become a little bland. I'm not rushing out to buy a SB 8-button in royal purple any time soon, but it is possible to dress well on a reasonable budget and rage, rage against the dying light. Besides I'm a learner, and all these weird esoteric rules are quite a bit of fun.
post #15 of 32
Quote:
When you look at someone, what do you see? A head and two hands. The other 90% is clothes and shoes. Just a theory.
Simple point, but true. Think of seeing somewhat at a distance. The overall color scheme of a person's outfits matters more here than grooming or an attractive face. I would argue, as a matter of fact, that clothing is more valuable as information than any other part of someone's appearance. As such, it can be more important for determining whether or not a person is in fact attractive. ...Well here, I may be talking about more than just aesthetic appeal, so I apologize for diverting this... Though it is only a thin covering, it can give you more of a window into a person than their physical features or their grooming. The clothes a person buys tells you one useful thing, and the way they match them tells you a second. The clothes tell you about the person's taste. What is most important: quality, flashiness, uniqueness, texture? Does this person want to flaunt their body or hide it? Does this person seem to care about clothes at all anyway ("no" would obviously be the preferable of many)? Is this person creative or boring? Does he have some vague aspiration to be a bohemian or is all just business? Is this person likely to be a vegan? I see gorgeous girls often, but I would not deign (or perhaps dare) to talk to them. It is entirely because of their lame taste. When I see a "sexy chic" wearing an abercrombie tank top and Seven Jeans, with big bongos and a hot ass, I would not go talk to her. It's not that I look down on her. I admire the wonderful butt, etc., but I know that she would find me a ridiculous freak and I would find her provinicial - and even if she weren't, I wouldn't be able to get over the boring fashion sense. So, I don't bother. If she were wearing a vintage silk courtesan skirt, a floral embroidered top, and a velvet coat, we might have something to say to each other. But then, we are talking about initial appearances perhaps, and what forms pure, visual, "attractiveness". When I see a male in a blue shirt and khakis, I never think he's attractive. I mean, I can't really tell so clearly which males are and aren't attractive inherently, so clothes are going to make the difference. Most girls, guys wearing outfits like that appealing though. But what is objectively appealing - and what are the components of that in descending order? It must vary from person to person. I suppose.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › What's the point of this all?