Sneakers With Tailoring: Yes, No, Maybe?

[JFWR]

Totally bizarre to compare a grown woman to a little boy.

Not really.

She looks exactly like a 13 year old boy.

This is basically classic Greek pederasty aesthetic. "Beardless youths".

Look at even the lack of (obvious) make up. Everything here is accenting her male-like appearance.

 

[yorkshire pud]

TBH, I don't listen to rock and roll, so I don't know any of this music. But I've admired both men's style.

You really should, pop music and style are joined at the hips (even classic menswear).

Maybe The Beatles would be your thing, they certainly opened my eyes to classical music (and a whole lot more!!!)

Prince was a big fan BTW!!!!!

 

[FlyingHorker]

@dieworkwear Nope, I lied, I do have something more to add.

Yes to also taking inspiration in terms of colour from womenswear, I enjoy that aspect.

I've noticed women are more effective at using the colour black, and that can be used as part of menswear as well.

Ex: Wearing a monochromatic black outfit, then wearing a mustard/ochre shawl cardigan over top. This really highlights the sweater colour.

 

[dieworkwear]

@dieworkwear Nope, I lied, I do have something more to add.

Yes to also taking inspiration in terms of colour from womenswear, I enjoy that aspect.

I've noticed women are more effective at using the colour black, and that can be used as part of menswear as well.

Ex: Wearing a monochromatic black outfit, then wearing a mustard/ochre shawl cardigan over top. This really highlights the sweater colour.

I agree, a lot of that tonal stuff was introduced to me through womenswear.

Not really.

She looks exactly like a 13 year old boy.

This is basically classic Greek pederasty aesthetic. "Beardless youths".

 

[circumspice]

It is somewhat useful I think to recognize your own biases - I have long, narrowish feet for my frame, so I tend to not like the look of most of the sneakers in these looks because they are effectively quasi-monkey laced derbies - short vamp, 7 or 8 eyelets = long facings which I think would accentuate the length of my foot. And de rigueur, they are in blinding optic white. So, what comes across in my mind's eye when perusing most of these pics is "FEET!!!FEET!!!FEET!!!FEET" - just about anything and everything I could do to maximize the length of my feet is on display.

So, not really for me - I am not really getting past the lack of applicability for me. I don't really need new shoes, and I don't see buying more sneakers as answering any of my problems

The framing of these debates is always a bit weird to me - no one really asks "Shoes: Should I wear them with a sport coat?" It is always something narrower - oxfords, loafers, etc. If the question is "Sneakers?" well, which ones? The only ones that left a mark on me was a shot of George Brio in I think Keds, which were effectively like a plain toe oxford - again, this resonates with me because of my own bias to not have long facings in parallel.

 

[yorkshire pud]

It is somewhat useful I think to recognize your own biases - I have long, narrowish feet for my frame, so I tend to not like the look of most of the sneakers in these looks because they are effectively quasi-monkey laced derbies - short vamp, 7 or 8 eyelets = long facings which I think would accentuate the length of my foot. And de rigueur, they are in blinding optic white. So, what comes across in my mind's eye when perusing most of these pics is "FEET!!!FEET!!!FEET!!!FEET" - just about anything and everything I could do to maximize the length of my feet is on display.

So, not really for me - I am not really getting past the lack of applicability for me. I don't really need new shoes, and I don't see buying more sneakers as answering any of my problems

The framing of these debates is always a bit weird to me - no one really asks "Shoes: Should I wear them with a sport coat?" It is always something narrower - oxfords, loafers, etc. If the question is "Sneakers?" well, which ones? The only ones that left a mark on me was a shot of George Brio in I think Keds, which were effectively like a plain toe oxford - again, this resonates with me because of my own bias to not have long facings in parallel.

As I have aged I have turned to natural/cream coloured sneakers instead of pure white. It tones things down significantly and looks less cheap somehow to my eyes.

 

[JFWR]

I agree, a lot of that tonal stuff was introduced to me through womenswear.




View attachment 1673990

I don't know what to tell you, man, but this is........literally expressive of a pederast aesthetic.

This is basic history of art stuff.

I am not saying that you have to be a pederast to like this stuff, I am saying that this is how it works.

Why can the feminine approximate the masculine better than the other way around? Because girls look like boys until boys become pubescent. Some women, especially the type so depicted, retain that look forever.

This is not to say there isn't cases of androgeny amongst men. David Bowie was androgenous, as are like the majority of Korean pop acts. Nevertheless, that -requires- a certain type that approximates an undeveloped masculinity - in other words, the masculinity of a pre-pubescent boy, which is androgenous as compared to the masculinized, sexually dimorphic adult man.

In other words, you couldn't have:

Burt Reynolds look super femme and look good.

Why? Because his developed masculinity would clash with the feminine look.

Meanwhile, the female model could definitely pass for a young boy.

 

[jack webb]

Though seriously: this doesn't follow logically.

Just because a woman can look more feminine because she is wearing a feminine twist on something traditionally masculine, does not mean the same would hold true in reverse.

If P, then Q

Does not imply if Q, then P.

Or more completely:

If M & T, then F.

With M standing for "traditionally masculine", T as "feminine twist", F as "feminine".

Does not entail

If F & T, then M.

With F being traditionally feminine, T as "masculine twist", and M as masculine.

So no, sometimes it doesn't go the opposite way. In fact, traditionally feminine is so feminine, that it really doesn't accentuate the masculine at all. As a general rule, the feminine is able to mimic the masculine more than the other way around. This is largely because the feminine often approximates the pre, or early pubescent male. I am sure you can understand the connection to Greek erotic mores without me going into purient detail.

Yes, it does seem to run in one direction. I remember a girlfriend who looked great in one of my shirts. I never tried one of her halter tops. Honest.

 

[dieworkwear]

I don't know what to tell you, man, but this is........literally expressive of a pederast aesthetic.

This is basic history of art stuff.

I am not saying that you have to be a pederast to like this stuff, I am saying that this is how it works.

Why can the feminine approximate the masculine better than the other way around? Because girls look like boys until boys become pubescent. Some women, especially the type so depicted, retain that look forever.

This is not to say there isn't cases of androgeny amongst men. David Bowie was androgenous, as are like the majority of Korean pop acts. Nevertheless, that -requires- a certain type that approximates an undeveloped masculinity - in other words, the masculinity of a pre-pubescent boy, which is androgenous as compared to the masculinized, sexually dimorphic adult man.

In other words, you couldn't have:

Burt Reynolds look super femme and look good.

Why? Because his developed masculinity would clash with the feminine look.

Meanwhile, the female model could definitely pass for a young boy.

I don't think any of this has to do with why women can look good in menswear. I think it's mostly about gender anxiety among men. Especially in today's age, where some men are increasingly anxious about gender identification as some people are questioning those norms. So they seek out narrower and more clearly defined parameters for how to express masculinity. It's similar to why we have "man laundry detergents" and other gendered things that don't need to be gendered.

The reason why women can wear masculine things is because fashion has been historically coded as a feminine interest. Men are supposed to live a life of the mind; vanity is for women. Even if all genders participate in fashion, the interest itself is coded as feminine. And so, women are given freer reign in fashion.

Women of all shapes, sizes, and body types can wear masculine clothing and look good in it. Putting the caveat that I don't agree with pederasts (can't believe I have to type this), I don't think that women with smaller breasts are the only people who can wear masculine fashion (and I don't agree that femininity is defined by your breast size). It's just that thinner women are often used as models, so we'll often find those photos online. But when you go out into society, you see all types of women wearing masculine things, and many of them look good. You have women who are very busty who wear masculine items; women are are not busty who wear masculine items. It's not about "who looks like a 13 year old boy." And, again, with the caveat that gender expression in clothing changes over time -- pants were once considered a masculine item.

You just don't see this happening much in menswear because clothing is social. What we consider "good" is often socially defined. And historically, the band in which menswear operates is much narrower. But that doesn't mean that men haven't worn fem clothing and looked good in it. Or that you can't apply to same logic in womenswear as you can in menswear. Lots of guys look even more masculine in fem-ish items.

The guys who look best in Belgian shoes are often very masculine looking because you see a contrast between the femininity of their shoes and the masculinity of their physical appearance. There's also something very "macho" about a guy who's so confident in his masculinity that he's OK with wearing a slightly more feminine item.

 

[radicaldog]

I think you and I can at least agree that fashion trends and rules, for lack of a better term, differ for men and women.

Anyone who follows the overall direction of fashion or style in this century knows that this binary is on the way out, even though it'll be several decades at least until it's completely obsolete.

 

[JFWR]

I don't think any of this has to do with why women can look good in menswear. I think it's mostly about gender anxiety among men. Especially in today's age, where some men are increasingly anxious about gender identification as some people are questioning those norms. So they seek out narrower and more clearly defined parameters for how to express masculinity. It's similar to why we have "man laundry detergents" and other gendered things that don't need to be gendered.

The reason why women can wear masculine things is because fashion has been historically coded as a feminine interest. Men are supposed to live a life of the mind; vanity is for women. Even if all genders participate in fashion, the interest itself is coded as feminine. And so, women are given freer reign in fashion.

Women of all shapes, sizes, and body types can wear masculine clothing and look good in it. Putting the caveat that I don't agree with pederasts (can't believe I have to type this), I don't think that women with smaller breasts are the only people who can wear masculine fashion (and I don't agree that femininity is defined by your breast size). It's just that thinner women are often used as models, so we'll often find those photos online. But when you go out into society, you see all types of women wearing masculine things, and many of them look good. You have women who are very busty who wear masculine items; women are are not busty who wear masculine items. It's not about "who looks like a 13 year old boy." And, again, with the caveat that gender expression in clothing changes over time -- pants were once considered a masculine item.

You just don't see this happening much in menswear because clothing is social. What we consider "good" is often socially defined. And historically, the band in which menswear operates is much narrower. But that doesn't mean that men haven't worn fem clothing and looked good in it. Or that you can't apply to same logic in womenswear as you can in menswear. Lots of guys look even more masculine in fem-ish items.

The guys who look best in Belgian shoes are often very masculine looking because you see a contrast between the femininity of their shoes and the masculinity of their physical appearance. There's also something very "macho" about a guy who's so confident in his masculinity that he's OK with wearing a slightly more feminine item.


View attachment 1674073 View attachment 1674074 View attachment 1674075

I've never come upon male laundry detergents, but I'll take your word on it.

But no, I don't think this is expressive in any sense of gender anxiety. If anything, gender anxiety is at an all time low, with how chique it is to identify as various non-hetero sexualities and other identities. I do not think there is any real evidence of there being a reactionary push back to this through fashion. Perhaps some men might feel threatened, but I don't think this enters into men's fashion as a whole, or in the lives of most men.

This strikes me as a very surface-level view that doesn't appreciate the long histories of these aesthetics that go far, far beyond the scope of classic mens wear and 20th century fashion. We're talking about an aesthetic that has popped up since the ancient Greeks. It also is linked with basic biological facts about the development of the sexes.

Consider this further fact: Women display greater indications of neoteny than men. They are smaller, have less body hair, softer voices, etc, on average than men. Even though women do display sexual dimorphisms (breasts, hips, etc.), women are on the whole more expressive of a neotenous type. This is part of the reason that women can pull off "cute", and that cute is partially child-like. Think of even the "vocal fry" that many women do, that is meant in many ways to mimic a childish voice.

Returning to the idea of the feminine approximating the masculine, we can see that at some point in the development of the male, the male doesn't look that much different from the female. Boys don't look that much different than girls until puberty, at which point there are dramatic changes, and men tend to lose those neotenous features that are frequently seen amongst women. Not all men do, and that is where you get the pretty boy aesthetic - which is basically, the adult man-as-child, and thus more feminized - but a good amount of men develop secondary sex characteristics. Given the feminine retains the neotenous features, it is not that far off - even when more exaggeratedly feminine - from the young male.

As for fashion being more female focused: to some extent you are correct, though this hasn't always been the case historically when men's clothing was much broader than it is today outside of the casual (think: Louis XIV). But this doesn't explain why women can embrace the masculine more readily. It isn't a question of the fact that women are more into fashion, or it is more acceptable to be into fashion as a woman, it is that women look better masculinized than men do feminized because women already share similarities to the type of masculinity they mimic: the young male, the "beardless youth".

Most women aren't trying to look like actually, hyper-masculine types of men (excluding perhaps, butch and certain punk styles and such). When they do, they frequently look awful.

As to whether or not women of different body types can pull off the masculine: they frequently can, but it often comes off more "cute" for a curvaceous woman to do the masculine, than the same aesthetic in the model picture posted.

As for your belgium loafer pictures: Aesthetically, I see nothing here that appeals. I disagree with your assessment that their masculinity is enhanced by the pairing of a feminine piece. In fact, I think it looks discordant and garish, attention-seeking, etc. It reminds me of the type of thing you see in rock where the performer is explicitly trying to affect a look. That can work in rock and roll, as it is part of that extravagance and outrageousness that characterizes the genre, but as a fashion choice, I see nothing positive here.

 

[ValidusLA]

The guys who look best in Belgian shoes are often very masculine looking because you see a contrast between the femininity of their shoes and the masculinity of their physical appearance. There's also something very "macho" about a guy who's so confident in his masculinity that he's OK with wearing a slightly more feminine item.

This is "handsome man" fallacy. Throw a discordant piece of clothing on a handsome man and it looks decent. Throw it on an overweight, unhandsome man and it just looks more discordant.

I think there is some truth to the last sentence. I do think of very insecure men deriding the idea of wearing pink, whereas I think it can be a great color.

 

[H. E. Pennypacker]

View attachment 1673721 View attachment 1673722 View attachment 1673723 View attachment 1673724

View attachment 1673726 View attachment 1673732

This is probably gender bias or at least leniency but I've always thought women look amazing, dare I say scrumptious, in trousers regardless of footwear and this is no exception. Of course, as long it's a tasteful outfit. Personally, I always thought women have more freedom/leniency in stylistic acceptance.

 

[dieworkwear]

I've never come upon male laundry detergents, but I'll take your word on it.

But no, I don't think this is expressive in any sense of gender anxiety. If anything, gender anxiety is at an all time low, with how chique it is to identify as various non-hetero sexualities and other identities. I do not think there is any real evidence of there being a reactionary push back to this through fashion. Perhaps some men might feel threatened, but I don't think this enters into men's fashion as a whole, or in the lives of most men.

This strikes me as a very surface-level view that doesn't appreciate the long histories of these aesthetics that go far, far beyond the scope of classic mens wear and 20th century fashion. We're talking about an aesthetic that has popped up since the ancient Greeks. It also is linked with basic biological facts about the development of the sexes.

Consider this further fact: Women display greater indications of neoteny than men. They are smaller, have less body hair, softer voices, etc, on average than men. Even though women do display sexual dimorphisms (breasts, hips, etc.), women are on the whole more expressive of a neotenous type. This is part of the reason that women can pull off "cute", and that cute is partially child-like. Think of even the "vocal fry" that many women do, that is meant in many ways to mimic a childish voice.

Returning to the idea of the feminine approximating the masculine, we can see that at some point in the development of the male, the male doesn't look that much different from the female. Boys don't look that much different than girls until puberty, at which point there are dramatic changes, and men tend to lose those neotenous features that are frequently seen amongst women. Not all men do, and that is where you get the pretty boy aesthetic - which is basically, the adult man-as-child, and thus more feminized - but a good amount of men develop secondary sex characteristics. Given the feminine retains the neotenous features, it is not that far off - even when more exaggeratedly feminine - from the young male.

As for fashion being more female focused: to some extent you are correct, though this hasn't always been the case historically when men's clothing was much broader than it is today outside of the casual (think: Louis XIV). But this doesn't explain why women can embrace the masculine more readily. It isn't a question of the fact that women are more into fashion, or it is more acceptable to be into fashion as a woman, it is that women look better masculinized than men do feminized because women already share similarities to the type of masculinity they mimic: the young male, the "beardless youth".

Most women aren't trying to look like actually, hyper-masculine types of men (excluding perhaps, butch and certain punk styles and such). When they do, they frequently look awful.

As to whether or not women of different body types can pull off the masculine: they frequently can, but it often comes off more "cute" for a curvaceous woman to do the masculine, than the same aesthetic in the model picture posted.

As for your belgium loafer pictures: Aesthetically, I see nothing here that appeals. I disagree with your assessment that their masculinity is enhanced by the pairing of a feminine piece. In fact, I think it looks discordant and garish, attention-seeking, etc. It reminds me of the type of thing you see in rock where the performer is explicitly trying to affect a look. That can work in rock and roll, as it is part of that extravagance and outrageousness that characterizes the genre, but as a fashion choice, I see nothing positive here.

Can't stress enough how odd is to hear someone say that women are just a subset of men. This is a weird Taliban, Black Israelite type of belief. Why is it that the default for a child male? Why doesn't a grown woman who's of a smaller stature get compared to little girls (not that I think they should)? But why compare them to little boys?

I think, at the point where you find yourself agreeing with pederasts, it might be time to reevaluate your views.

And again, if you go out into the world, you will see women of all shapes and sizes wear masculine clothing. It's not just women "who look like 13 year old boys."

This is "handsome man" fallacy. Throw a discordant piece of clothing on a handsome man and it looks decent. Throw it on an overweight, unhandsome man and it just looks more discordant.

I think there is some truth to the last sentence. I do think of very insecure men deriding the idea of wearing pink, whereas I think it can be a great color.

I don't want to post photos of men who are counterexamples of this ("look, here's an ugly man wearing Belgians!"). But I can think of a couple of men who are very masculine looking, but not considered "traditionally handsome." I think they wear Belgian shoes well. It's again the way they've used feminine shoes to soften their look, and how those shoes play into a larger aesthetic.

 

[JFWR]

Can't stress enough how odd is to hear someone say that women are just a subset of men. This is a weird Taliban, Black Israelite type of belief. Why is it that the default for a child male? Why doesn't a grown woman who's of a smaller stature get compared to little girls (not that I think they should)? But why compare them to little boys?

I think, at the point where you find yourself agreeing with pederasts, it might be time to reevaluate your views.

And again, if you go out into the world, you will see women of all shapes and sizes wear masculine clothing. It's not just women "who look like 13 year old boys."

I don't want to post photos of men who are counterexamples of this ("look, here's an ugly man wearing Belgians!"). But I can think of a couple of men who are very masculine looking, but not considered "traditionally handsome." I think they wear Belgian shoes well. It's again the way they've used feminine shoes to soften their look, and how those shoes play into a larger aesthetic.

Is this your new autumn look, Dieworkwear?

Cause it seems you like straw men.

I am not saying women are a subset of men (and you know this, but you're run out of logical responses). I am saying this:

Prior to puberty (childhood), there is not much difference, physically, between boys and girls besides the sex organs and such.
Neotenous features track childhood.
Feminine features track neotenous features.
Masculine features do not track neotenous features.
Therefore, women more closely approximate pre-adult boys.

Even if you have a woman displaying prominent secondary sexual characteristics (as in curvaceous women), the neotenous elements of the feminine are usually still prominent, allowing the style to be "cute".

I am not "agreeing" with pederasts. I am pointing out the pederastic elements expressive in that model's style. She is clearly attempting to affect the look of an adolescent boy.

Very famous example of pederast elements in art. Note how a boy's figure is (accurately) depicted as being more closely feminine.

Or how about this:

Why is Peter Pan played often by a woman?

Why is Bart Simpson voiced by a woman?