or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › No effs given... correctly
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

No effs given... correctly - Page 5

post #61 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantabrigian View Post

Like I said before, this isn't how to do it correctly. This is about - you're almost certainly wrong unless you avoid thes things.

you need then, to change the tread title. like, "no effs given....... things to avoid or you will look like a tool."

something like that.
post #62 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post


you need then, to change the tread title. like, "no effs given....... things to avoid or you will look like a tool."

something like that.

No, because then everyone will start listing their pet peeves, and there are plenty of threads about that already.

 

The best way forward would be, IMHO, to post a picture of someone correctly pulling off an FU look a day (maybe even taken form the WAYWRN thread). Members can then dissect that look in this thread, in order to (hopefully) find out why this particular person/outfit manages to break the rules successfully. This would create a sort of archive that can be used for reference, or to point clueless newbies (like myself) and more senior members (like the ones afraid of wearing a PS) to when they have questions regarding pulling of an FU look smile.gif

 

Of course Cantabrigian is the starter of this thread, so he can do with this suggestion as he pleases.

post #63 of 477

This thread's been dead for the better part of 4 pages now. Let's just let it grow organically and see where it ends up.

post #64 of 477
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeyface View Post

No, because then everyone will start listing their pet peeves, and there are plenty of threads about that already.

The best way forward would be, IMHO, to post a picture of someone correctly pulling off an FU look a day (maybe even taken form the WAYWRN thread). Members can then dissect that look in this thread, in order to (hopefully) find out why this particular person/outfit manages to break the rules successfully. This would create a sort of archive that can be used for reference, or to point clueless newbies (like myself) and more senior members (like the ones afraid of wearing a PS) to when they have questions regarding pulling of an FU look smile.gif


Of course Cantabrigian is the starter of this thread, so he can do with this suggestion as he pleases.

I think that's a great idea.
post #65 of 477
So what's the diff between no eff given, peacock, #menswear, and plain silly?
post #66 of 477
Monkeyface - I agree 100%. I was just saying that if C only wanted to accomplish what I had quoted, the title is off.

Going with your idea, which is what i was hoping this thread was going tobe about, title is perfect.

smile.gif
post #67 of 477
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post

So what's the diff between no eff given, peacock, #menswear, and plain silly?

Not bad, bad, beyond bad and plain silly.
post #68 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post

So what's the diff between no eff given, peacock, #menswear, and plain silly?

As i understand it.

no eff given and peacock are really pretty close. Tho no eff given may be about pattern coordination and eye catching items, and peacocking more about thongs like really loud patterns and big peak lapels with patch pockets... Either look can work imo, when done right.

#menswear = trendy tumblr looks. Undone monk straps, undone collar buttons, really tight pants or jacket... These things are generally frowned upon on SF.

Just silly - when any of the above is a total fail.
post #69 of 477
The essence of "no fucks given" is context independent dressing. You dress exactly as you like whether you are giving a presentation to the board, to the Nobel committee, or just going down the street for a coffee. There is no "dressing up", and significantly, there is no "dressing down".

Someone who really doesn't give a fuck dresses for their own edification and comfort, not for any audience in particular. It first requires that you have a strongly developed sense of personal style - which is to say - a mode of dressing in which you are most comfortable. And then you dress that way regardless of occasion. You are not doing this to piss people off. You are not doing this to make people happy. You are not doing this for an audience. In fact, whether people are present or are not present is irrelevant. You are doing this because this is how you roll.
post #70 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post

The essence of "no fucks given" is context independent dressing. You dress exactly as you like whether you are giving a presentation to the board, to the Nobel committee, or just going down the street for a coffee. There is no "dressing up", and significantly, there is no "dressing down".

Someone who really doesn't give a fuck dresses for their own edification and comfort, not for any audience in particular. It first requires that you have a strongly developed sense of personal style - which is to say - a mode of dressing in which you are most comfortable. And then you dress that way regardless of occasion. You are not doing this to piss people off. You are not doing this to make people happy. You are not doing this for an audience. In fact, whether people are present or are not present is irrelevant. You are doing this because this is how you roll.

I like this but I don't think it's entirely true. It might hold that a certain aesthetic informs everything a fellow wears, but a complete refusal to adapt to social setting sounds like mental illness.

I'd suggest that success sits at the intersection of intent and execution. It requires having something interesting to say and the vocabulary to say it.

A lot of the stuff we see here lacks both.
post #71 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHolliday View Post


I like this but I don't think it's entirely true. It might hold that a certain aesthetic informs everything a fellow wears, but a complete refusal to adapt to social setting sounds like mental illness.

I'd suggest that success sits at the intersection of intent and execution. It requires having something interesting to say and the vocabulary to say it.

A lot of the stuff we see here lacks both.


in your opinion do any of the pics posted in here achieve the "no effs given" from your perspective?

post #72 of 477
In this thread, you mean? By "here" I was intending to speak more broadly.
post #73 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tirailleur1 View Post


in your opinion do any of the pics posted in here achieve the "no effs given" from your perspective?

I think that it's impossible to really tell, since most of the pictures are taken in the privacy of someone's home. I'd hope that no one would give a fuck in the privacy of their own home, or else they really need help relaxing, probably in the form of a handful of pills.
post #74 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHolliday View Post

I like this but I don't think it's entirely true. It might hold that a certain aesthetic informs everything a fellow wears, but a complete refusal to adapt to social setting sounds like mental illness.

I'd suggest that success sits at the intersection of intent and execution. It requires having something interesting to say and the vocabulary to say it.

A lot of the stuff we see here lacks both.

I would agree with your second paragraph, but also add that I don't think that it is in any way incompatible with my point.

Also, I think that we've all heard that "Poor people are crazy. Rich people are eccentric." To which I say "Don't give a fuck".
post #75 of 477
Case in point being Luca Rubinacci. Now, I've never met the man. But from the way he presents himself, and writes about himself in the blog, I think him slappable, in the way I find some movie stars I'll probably never meet, punchable. He, I'm sure, does not give a fuck what I think. I find that somewhat admirable.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › No effs given... correctly