or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › Thoughts on the Sartorialist
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Thoughts on the Sartorialist - Page 5

post #61 of 142

I'm going to give this one more try before assuming that this is just a troll.

 

a) you're conflating recognition of non-western aesthetics with some extreme kind of relativism

 

b) you fail to distinguish between any of the large varieties of philosophical relativism, lumping them altogether into one incoherent heap (you don't distinguish between cultural relativism, conceptual relativism, aesthetic relativism, moral relativism, strong vs. weak relativism—see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/ for more reading)

 

c) you're drawing a false similarity between two completely different fits/photos

 

d) your assertion that western values "reflect" what is naturally beautiful is unqualified—you provide no argument for this other than that it's "self-evident" (which is clearly is not). you can have all of the assumptions you want, but unless you provide an argument for them nobody will listen to you. 

post #62 of 142
Don't bother with this clown. This is the type of irreparable and self-assured douche that pretends to see no race, color, creed, sexual identity, etc., which just so conveniently makes his perspective appear to be the objective truth

And I love fiddling with grammar, but GROW THE FUCK UP. This is an online forum, and it makes you especially pathetic that you pick on people's grammar incessantly as a way to elevate yourself. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe you have some type of OCD, but that's left PC nonsense to a prick like you
post #63 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBatman View Post

Ok, here we go. "If I were still an academic" (I fixed your spelling error). I assume you are trying to hint that you were at one time some kind of academic, which could mean anything from high school English teacher to college professor. If you are trying to suggest to me that you are some kind of authority on the English language, OK, I'll bite. Why don't you just go ahead and tell me what your occupation was?

I'll tell you mine. I'm a psychologist. You probably don't believe me, and I probably won't believe you, but I have no problem just outright saying it. That calculated slip of the keyboard is obvious and cowardly.
You must be a bad psychologist.

I don't feel the need to trot out my academic credentials since I own the site, my identity is public, and my record is out there for anyone to find.

I was a college professor. I had a very good funding record and a decent publication record. I hold a PhD from Caltech.

Now, since I've answered your question, you defend your original premise. I'm going to give you the completely unwarranted benefit of the doubt that you are not both a troll and a complete idiot.
post #64 of 142
@ The Batman

I agree with your judgment and instictual reaction to those pictures. I too find that to be weird and clashing. The clothes clash with his body. Makeup on women (whether intentional or not) tends to accentuate their attraction towards men (simulates sexual arousal), as I believe this to be a biological trait inline with evolution.

This is why I think that the makeup emphasising the lips in this particular "eccentric" manner gives an exaggerated look, which whilst inkeeping with his projection of personality, remains in conflic with our perceptions of his clear sex. It's definitely confusing.

Its not relative in this objective lense
post #65 of 142

Considering the fact that males exhibit much the same visual physical reaction to arousal (blushing, reddening of the lips, dilating of the pupils), and heterosexual women often have a physical reaction to the visual cues of arousal in the opposite sex, this still does not explain why makeup should be attractive in women but not men, unless it is a cultural/normative behavior.

post #66 of 142
It's the whole package. Taking elements of makeup is not what I'm referring to. Makeup can indeed accentuate male desirability too. Flawless skin, red lips etc..

Its what the makeup highlights in part to construct the whole from the perspective of the viewer. So women have curves and a certain body ratio/ proportion which is clearly distinct and unique from men, as it aught to be inorder to serve our respected functions in sex. Sexual dimorphism is the order of the day. We may rationalise over it but we can't deny its effects. It would be like denying reality for myself.

I'm ripping this straight from Wiki:

"Fundamental sex differences in genetics, hormones and brain structure and function may manifest as distal cultural phenomena (e.g., males as primary combatants in warfare, the primarily female readership of romance novels, etc.)" Fisher, M., et al. (2013). Evolution's Empress: Darwinian Perspectives on the Nature of Women. Oxford: Oxford University Press

At the end of the day we need to explain why an overwhelming majority of people, at first glance, would feel at unease with those images.
post #67 of 142

I'm not disagreeing with you in terms of sexual dimorphism. Clearly such a thing exists. However, the fact that men's and woman's bodies are different has nothing to do with it. Essentially what it boils down to is, men and women are different, however, how those differences are perceived changes over time and space. Whether or not a floral tank top, a purse, and lipstick is pleasing on a man or a woman is more a consequence of subjective social norms than objective aesthetics.

 

To illustrate: Imagine a time when purses did not exist. Now try to imagine the events that would have to happen in order to make purses a gender specific item. They are, in essence, simply bags that carry stuff. Carrying stuff in a bag isn't gender specific. It has more to do with all kinds of gender assumptions made in a society, such as assuming that women are more particular about their appearance and so need to carry more stuff, such as makeup and cosmetics. All cultural. Consider this as well. Someone I know, a heterosexual man, wears a nose piercing. We were talking about it and he remembered a time when nose piercings were not gender specific. Now everyone around him considers it a feminine trait. Why should that be? What changed over time? Interesting questions that all lend to the point that these things are specific to time and place. Was George Washington less of a man because he wore hosiery that was skin tight and sat above the knee? 

 

I'm not saying that social norms should be totally ignored. Indeed, that is what much of classic menswear is based on. However, we all recognize that the standards of sartorial elegance that everyone on the CM side of the house embraces were created in a particular place and time, not in a vacuum. This is what it's all about, we are all the products of our time and place. 

post #68 of 142
But once again it does not explain away why I felt what I felt when first glancing at those pictures. If it is simply a social/normative construct then you have presumed indifference to (or dismissed outright) the biological influences on our day-to-day interactions. Biology is the basis in which our social communications are derived from. That is a wholly rational assumption. Those differences arising from biology are never perceived differently, only interpreted differently (in various societies) to communicate the same overriding hand of nature. Regardless of what item (handbag) is designated to in any given society, that very same overriding distinction of the sexes remain. So a man who is socioaly at ease with clutching his handbag will not react with indifference when a woman chooses to do the same. Why? It's because of projection and communication.

Our differences are a critical part of attraction. It's the reason why men (by in large) are not sexualy attracted to other men, and vice versa. Ours bodies, despite our rational faculties, communicate by what we call instincts.

In terms of clothing I agree with your observation, but once again if we were to listen to what the people back in those days of hosiery clad men were saying, then you would find the same strain of thought today, only manifested/interpreted differently. The calf muscle is particularly attractive, a neutral attraction that has gained renewed interests of late with men wearing tight pants. Fashion tends to be either neutral, in which case it is always almost functional, or a projection of status/wealth/emotion/sexuality.
Edited by Mojo1990 - 7/31/16 at 8:37pm
post #69 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo1990 View Post

Biology is the basis in which our social communication is derived from.

 

Not quite. Rather, culture determines how we interpret biology. In other words, no one would argue that men and women are different. What kind of meaning we give those differences depends on culture. Let's take the issue of men generally being the fighters and women being the gestators (forget the romance novel BS). The reasons for that are biological, but the meanings we attach to them are not. There are cultures in the world that give midget men a special magical place in society even though they do not fit the typical biological norm of the strong fighter. Similarly, there are cultures which hold a special spiritual place for what we would consider male femininity. This speaks strongly to a non-objective, cultural specific, interpretation of masculinity. 

 

As for men "by and large" not being attracted to other men, this is enormous case of cultural presumption. It is likely that it was very common for upper class young men in Greece to engage in spiritual, and often sexual, relationships with older "teachers", and was even at times required by the force of law. The erastes and the eromenos, as you know. Does this mean that the Greek states were ruled by an upper class of bisexuals and homosexuals? Of course not. What it means is that culture determines social/sexual norms.

 

To be honest, your arguments against this are very shaky and seem to rely on a whole slew of assumptions about biology that you have not established as anything more than that.

post #70 of 142

FWIW, I don't think the picture in question looks good either. However, it doesn't make me feel "uneasy" in the slightest. The reason for that is because that kind of look has been normalized in my life by my being exposed to it at length. In other words, it doesn't shock me because it's so common where I come from. To drive home my point: The culture in which I live tells me it's not something to be shocked by, so I'm not. See what I did there?

post #71 of 142
But that does not negate the fact that they were also attracted to women, and that objections for said practices were infact very common. Anachronism also plays into our interpretations of their perceived homosexuality (exclusive sexual attraction). I doubt very much the powerful men commiting pederasty (if invoked in our time) would consider their practices to be taken as indicative of their denial of sexual attraction towards women. In fact It is to be expected that, in a society which relegated such praise to men exclusively, found ways to justify even the sexual "exploitation" of young males. I am confident that these very same men must have had scores of women too, only they valued men more on a rational basis, and not because of sexual attraction. Pederasty existed by in large due to notions of male virtue, and often abuse of power. *Young innocent boys display many features similar to that of women* Seldom did grown men engage in homosexuality.

Most Greek influencial philosophers/ writers condemn the sexual act as shameful and brutish. It is interesting that in Afghanistan for example, the young boys involved in pederastic dancing, would dress in feminine attire and apply feminine makeup. They look very much like the people in those pictures.
post #72 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post
 

FWIW, I don't think the picture in question looks good either. However, it doesn't make me feel "uneasy" in the slightest. The reason for that is because that kind of look has been normalized in my life by my being exposed to it at length. In other words, it doesn't shock me because it's so common where I come from. To drive home my point: The culture in which I live tells me it's not something to be shocked by, so I'm not. See what I did there?

This.  Having spent the greater part of the past two decade in fashion, I find it hard to be shocked or even moved by anything nonnormative.  I am pretty sure that I had reached the apex of blase when I didn't even look twice when I saw a parade of flaccid penises strolling down the runway.

 

@Mojo1990 Your reactions to other people are, to a large degree, a product of the cultural acclimatization to which you have been subjected.  Further, just because you are aware of the root of your reactions does not mean that you will necessarily be able to control them.  I think that it's important to remove your personal experiences as much as possible in any analysis.  It's practically impossible to eliminate bias from any analysis, but certainly, you should not take your personal reactions as the starting point of any analysis.  I dunno.  Pretend that you are Spock or something.  Or just very bored with everything.

 

Re. the look referenced by the OP, it leaves me cold.  I find it boring.  It's just, for me, a very blah queer outfit on a queer guy.  Maybe Scot didn't do a good job of capturing the subject, or maybe the subject himself was just meh.  I don't know which one it is.  

post #73 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo1990 View Post

It is interesting that in Afghanistan for example, the young boys involved in pederastic dancing, would dress in feminine attire and apply feminine makeup. They look very much like the people on the pictures.

fwiw, men in the western world used powders and makeup until fairly recently.  The association of makeup, in general, with women exclusively, is fairly modern.

 

Certainly, in the picture that was referenced, the queerness of the subject was evident, and deliberate.  The subject does not live in a world without cultural norms, after all.  My point was only that the queerness of his dress is not inate, and does not necessarily have any "biological" basis, but because the picture was taken in 2016, in Brooklyn.

post #74 of 142
Hmm yes very good points 🤗

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the makeup looks "unnatural"?? Exaggerated eyebrows, and makeup. I would also feel the same for women if it looked overdone. Reminds me of the saying "she caked her make up on"

Edit

I think the more we stray away from Our natural selves, the more we are inclined to resist or cause harm? And often times our sense of perceived virtues (which we then rationalise), are taken as a means to justify the end. So in the case of pederasty, the (rationalised) notion of male superiority and "virtue", coupled with the idea of bonding, and the general scorn towards women, subverted the inclination to resist what men (in a primal/neutral state) would normally have for women.

The real question is, why do some men of homosexual or heterosexual orientation choose to express themselves in the way they do? That would give us the rationalisation
Edited by Mojo1990 - 7/31/16 at 10:04pm
post #75 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo1990 View Post

Hmm yes very good points 🤗

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the makeup looks "unnatural"?? Exaggerated eyebrows, and makeup. I would also feel the same for women if it looked overdone. Reminds me of the saying "she caked her make up on"

I think that it's perfectly fine to say that you personally don't like the look, and to state why you feel that way.

 

I think that the problem with @TheBatman was that he tried to state that his personal opinions were more than just that, and when questioned, instead of examining his own arguments, decided to insult others and correct their grammar.  

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Streetwear and Denim
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › Thoughts on the Sartorialist