Sneakers With Tailoring: Yes, No, Maybe?

[dieworkwear]

I am amused you remember my posts here better than I. I don't recall posting my tam o'shanter here.

It's warm as hell and it's fun to wear.

StyleForum's server is actually my brain. Any time anyone posts anything on here, even if I don't see it, it's registered in my brain.

 

[ValidusLA]

It's also pretty easy to peruse users former posts.

I've been tempted to dredge up other posters pasts in....certain other horrible threads....

But there lies bad karma.

DWW has a such a deep post history that it's like a star fort around past posts practically. Tens of thousands over years - would be a herculean effort.

 

[JFWR]

I didn't say that to suggest that menswear should be limited to conservative business dress or rugged workwear, but to say that, if we recognize the nuanced language in menswear, the same is true of womenswear. Just because you've reduced womenswear in such narrow terms doesn't mean that fully captures the range of expressions in that field. (Or rather, not necessarily womenswear, but menswear on women). I think you're just not as familiar with that field.

In previous posts, you've alluded to the idea that this is what you prefer on women -- cute dresses or cute expressions of menswear on women. Or women who accentuate their similarities to little boys (I don't know how to phrase this nicely; I didn't phrase it this way to be mean). But your sexual attraction towards a certain kind of woman has little relevance to how womenswear can legitimately express itself. Women don't necessarily dress to please men any more than men on this board dress to please women (if they did, I assure you they should not wear 99% of what's posted on this board).

Menswear has a wide range of expressions, which hopefully, people on this board can recognize because they're acquainted with the field. I'm again continually dismayed at how CM has morphed into a dandy shoe forum. But even within this language, there are many expressions. Womenswear has been historically much more expressive and nuanced; I don't see why in this specific instance, we should think that womenswear has more limited outcomes than menswear.

You misconstrued my point about women. I will take your non-malicious intent here serious.

It is not that I like women who "dress like little boys". In fact, I don't generally like androgenous looks on women at all. There are exceptions, of course, but I don't dig that look. But if someone IS to dress masculinely, they can pull it off if they look like an adolescent boy. It's the pederasty look that has been common in art for thousands of years. It can look suitable. I can aesthetically say "okay, she doesn't look terrible" in a detached ways.

It's not -my- sexual preference or aesthetic preference to like adolescent boy looks. It's not what I personally like.

My sexual or aesthetic preference is the cute girls I pointed out. That's how I like women to dress in a normal context. If I wanted to go out with a woman on a date in a low to medium formality setting, I'd want her to look like that. I also think they look objectively good, but that is very much a personal preference.

I also like Goth chicks, but that is neither here nor there. (Thanks, Elvira!)

You keep on forgetting the antecedent to this conditional. "If you want to dress masculinely". The looks that pull this off are those which I have written about over the last few hours, as I judge female aesthetics.

I will leave aside the idea of whether or not women like to dress for men. That's a whole other debate. We could probably go for another 4-5 hours (if not longer) on that one.

As for limitation of female styles: You have forgotten that the antecedent of the conditional limits the focus.

I am not saying the only option for girls is to look cute or boyish. I am saying that only of masculine-focused looks.

Girls can also dress sexy, they can dress cool, they can dress elegantly, they can dress dramatically, etc. In fact, I do agree with you: women have a more varied set of looks for men, especially as they can often do these in settings men can't, or shouldn't, do so.

 

[JFWR]

StyleForum's server is actually my brain. Any time anyone posts anything on here, even if I don't see it, it's registered in my brain.

Dieworkwear confirmed for fashion Skynet. He's going to nuke the world to get rid of oxfords worn without suits.

 

[dieworkwear]

I'm scared to publicly post this, but I think Derek is awesome. He's probably the coolest person on this board.

^ I saw this one too.

 

[ValidusLA]

^ I saw this one too.

Posting fake quotes is lame.

 

[dieworkwear]

Posting fake quotes is lame.

How dare you besmirch me? *throws down my tam o'shanter*

 

[ValidusLA]

As a side note, despite my hate for Blundstones, your hate for Mannys on anyone but Luca, your residence in the clearly hella inferior CA city, and the fact you are academic adjacent and I'm a dirty capitalist....my guess is you probably are cool.

And in terms of SF at least you take the time to provide content and don't just spew **** all over the place.

 

[Waldo Jeffers]

If we take this sentence as true:

"Women look better when they emphasize their cuteness or their similarity to adolescent males."

Then what's the counterpart for men? I assume:

"Men look better when they emphasize their ruggedness or their mature masculine characteristics."

If this is so, then how do things such as green oxfords fit into this? I'm not asking to be snarky, but genuinely curious. How does dressing like a 19th century Scotsman with a watch chain and wearing green oxfords emphasize one's ruggedness and mature characteristics? If womenswear outcomes are so limited, then presumably menswear outcomes are also limited (perhaps more so since menswear is often more limited). In this regard, this type of outfit just comes off as adolescent cosplay, dandy, or some other non-mature, non-rugged expression.

Wouldn't the only acceptable dress for men be basically Conservative Business Dress (as defined by Manton) or rugged workwear?

unless you are ridiculously good looking, or have an extremely commanding personality, which in the case of men who are considered very attractive, largely overlap, most of this stuff does come off as cosplay.

If you are not either of those things, which is most of us, it is important to be observant of context and boundaries, unless you just don’t care how you are perceived, which is fine, but not many people who care about clothes are in that category

 

[AgentGary]

I'd wear sneakers with tailoring because I honestly don't understand this look at all.



Why bother with the shoes if you are going to destroy the look with shorts?

Especially with calf socks looks so ridiculous. He has shorts on. Why would he decide "this is the right time to wear my Allen Edmonds"?

It's like, can't you guys go find yourself some sneakers?

I find it discordant and silly.

 

[dieworkwear]

unless you are ridiculously good looking, or have an extremely commanding personality, which in the case of men who are considered very attractive, largely overlap, most of this stuff does come off as cosplay.

If you are not either of those things, which is most of us, it is important to be observant of context and boundaries, unless you just don’t care how you are perceived, which is fine, but not many people who care about clothes are in that category

Do you mean the more dandy expressions of CM? I've never met anyone who dressed like that in real life, but I've met a few people from the CM and SWD sides of the board. Most are very stylish, but look natural to me. Of course, my view is probably colored by the fact that I like clothes. Also maybe colored by the fact that I live in an area where there's a lot of diversity in dress, and some oddball characters. So you'd have to really go out of your way to dress strange.

 

[JFWR]

I'd wear sneakers with tailoring because I honestly don't understand this look at all.

View attachment 1674201

Why bother with the shoes if you are going to destroy the look with shorts?

Especially with calf socks looks so ridiculous. He has shorts on. Why would he decide "this is the right time to wear my Allen Edmonds"?

It's like, can't you guys go find yourself some sneakers?

I find it discordant and silly.

LOL.

Okay, you can disagree if you don't like. That's great. I wasn't trying to be super sophisticated. I went out to a friend's house wearing those.

Also, they're not oxfords. They're bluchers.

I also don't like wearing shoes sockless, so I'd rather go argyle with shorts, instead of formal black dress socks.

 

[JohnMRobie]

Also, they're not oxfords. They're bluchers.

 

[JFWR]

View attachment 1674203

Look, it's a man drawing from feminine styles!

 

[AgentGary]

LOL.

Okay, you can disagree if you don't like. That's great. I wasn't trying to be super sophisticated. I went out to a friend's house wearing those.

Also, they're not oxfords. They're bluchers.

I also don't like wearing shoes sockless, so I'd rather go argyle with shorts, instead of formal black dress socks.

Are you trying to dress like an adolescent boy?
Not really my cup of tea. I'd prefer women.