If style is your beautiful wife fashion should be your exciting young mistress - Page 4

Giving some fashion to your wife can have the effect of having a mistress.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by size 38R 

Giving some fashion to your wife can have the effect of having a mistress.
 

Shrinking your bank account?

Originally Posted by Xenon 

fashion is an evolving element that permeates life and gets incorporated into style in some shape or form.

Originally Posted by Claghorn 

I guess I see Style as something which has coalesced over a number of years... In practice, I've always thought of the two in terms of a picture test. If I look back at a picture of myself 20 years from now, will I say "That looks good" or "What was I thinking?"

Originally Posted by hendrix 

Originally Posted by add911_11 
Style only comes with consistent pattern of fashion.

yeah I like this

Originally Posted by add911_11 

To add my previous post, I do think 'style' is sometimes a product of a consistent fashion during a period. The stroller may be considered as fashion during pre and post WW2 because most politicians and businessman took it as business dress, it failed to become style because it rarely developed, and only practiced in a short period. Unlike Biker style, with the wild one and his perfecto, such fashion emerged and expanded into different kinds of clothing, and come to the point of a 'style' in the modern days.

All the above are essentially saying very similar things, and I essentially agree. While it's not as lurid as analogy as David's wife/mistress paradigm, you could also parallel the relationships to mathematical concepts:

• What you wear today is a single point of data contributing towards a (sub)cultural mean.
• Fashion(s) is/are the current (sub)cultural mean(s).
• Style is Fashion integrated (at least once, maybe twice) over time.
• Personal Style is your own personal data points similarly integrated over time. A consistent/durable personal style has a relatively narrow standard deviation.
• If your Personal Style correlates closes with that of Style generally, you are considered Stylish in the eyes of that (sub)culture.

(I personally think a better way to look at it would be to call the last attribute, "Elegant" or "Well-dressed" rather than Stylish, preserving the latter term instead for those with a consistent Personal Style, to avoid the confusion of similar terminologies. But this is not how the words are generally used in common parlance, so I can't insist upon that.)

bertie will have to forgive me for not replying fully to his thorough reply to my earlier post, but it should be relatively clear from the above how I would parse his answer, broadly agreeing with many of the statements he made.

Great post, HF.

I just wonder, both literally and metaphorically, why should we be restricted to one mistress?

Originally Posted by bertie 

No need to apologize. Math is more my language than philosophy so you have made my life easier in your last post. As i have said before it helps me personally to understand the definition of a word before I use it let alone before I debate a point with someone else. Many of the apparent disagreements on this forum are simply disagreements about terminology rather than substance.

Holdfast in your last post, you have separated personal style from which moves us further ahead. Your 5 bullets should be stickied as standard reading before anyone debates fashion and style in the future.

Thanks; I wouldn't go that far! It's not in line with the vernacular meaning of these words and so has limited debating applicability. And it's also a very relativist position to take, which is not in line with everyone's worldview. It's just how I generally viewed the concepts, and makes internal sense to me. I'd never insist that others adopt such tortuous redefinitions!

Originally Posted by bertie 

Originally Posted by FlyingMonkey 

Great post, HF.

I just wonder, both literally and metaphorically, why should we be restricted to one mistress?

Standard deviation would be higher?

Bimodal peaks.

(and I don't mean their respective racks!)