style and attractiveness

[sloaney]

There has been a couple of threads, most notably, Casual the true mark of well-dressed? which questioned whether clothes made a difference in one's attractiveness.

To me, there is a clear distinction between being well-dressed and attractive. Walking to work from my apartment to the underground each morning, I can certainly see construction workers whom many would consider more visually attractive than I am, eventhough they are not well dressed.

Of course, it is my aim to be both attractive and well-dressed but if I had to choose one, I would choose the former.

You can only be attractive through a few ways:
(i) being born that way
(ii) strict diet and exercise regime
(iii) good posture
(iv) impeccable grooming habits

Attractive people don't need expensive clothes to look attractive. In fact, some say, the less clothes the better.

Well-dressed can be further broken down to:
(a) merchandise quality
(b) taste

Today, good taste is accessible if you know where and how to shop. Zara and Massimo Dutti are two places that come to mind immediately. Wear a light blue shirt from Massimo Dutti, a baby blue cashmere scarf from eBay and a Zara courduroy jacket in navy blue, and a pair of jeans from Levi's. You can look amazing.

Good taste is extremely rare in Africa, Asia, and the United States, and even on online sartorial forums.

My honest opinion based on Styleforum photos and the Annual Sartorial Collection photos, a lot of people are average on the attractiveness category, probably average to good on the merchandise quality category but rather mediocre on the taste level. Too overdone, too whimsical. The ties are too shiny and too wide. Remember, the ties and the shoes give it all away. But then maybe it's me. I don't consider someone who wears polka dot socks well-dressed, no matter how well it compliments his outfit. Cut, fit, texture and colour -- these are key to sartorial sophistication and class.

Some truths:
(i) most people would be more attracted to an attractive person than to a well-dressed person
(ii) a good haircut can be more important than a good suit
(iii) a good body underneath is better than a custom shirt*
(iv) an attractive person wearing H&M will beat an unattractive person wearing Kitton 90% of the time
(v) in the end of the day, you cannot **** a suit

*Case in point: a friend of mine looked better in my custom shirt -- a shirt specifically made for me -- than I did. I can't overstate how large of an impact this occasion had on me. I have been going to the gym consistently and have been pleased with the results.

That's all.

 

[ChicagoRon]

Well said...... although I'd like to add two pointts:

For those who are familiar with statistics, the std. of deviation for attractiveness of men is much smaller than that of women. For those who don't, that basically means that 80-90% of men are indistinguishably close to "Average-looking".......mostly 4,5,6 on a ten-point scale. Women have a much wider spectrum of attractiveness. Because of that, being well dressed can distinguish one average-looking guy from another and give him the much-needed edge as his style represents his personality.

Second, to echo some of your sentiment....you cannot buy taste. There seems to be a small contingent on this forum (and a large one in the real world) who think that just because something is expensive, it is in good taste. There is some HIDEOUS stuff out there that costs thousands of dollars. If anyone ever sees me in Roberto Cavalli, shoot me please!

Originally Posted by sloaney

(v) in the end of the day, you cannot **** a suit

You can.....but then you have to dry clean it

(sorry, I couldn't resist)

 

[sloaney]

Originally Posted by ChicagoRon

Well said...... although I'd like to add two pointts:
For those who are familiar with statistics, the sd. of deviation for attractiveness of men is much smaller than that of women. For those who don't, that basically means that 80-90% of men are indistinguishably close to "Average-looking".......mostly 4,5,6 on a ten-point scale. Women have a much wider spectrum of attractiveness. Because of that, being well dressed can distinguish one average-looking guy from another and give him the much-needed edge as his style represents his personality.

This is very interesting. I wonder though, if this is from the perspective of men, i.e. men are not wired to detect such a huge variation among people of their own gender, but women would be able to make minute distinctions?

 

[cheapmutha]

hmm... as an attractive and well dressed man id like to chime in.

confidence means more than anything else. you can be very good looking, dress well, and not be confident in yourself and no one will ever notice how attractive and well dressed you are. at the same time, you can be average and dress poorly, but pull beautiful women because of confidence in yourself.

trust me, i know all too well.

 

[sloaney]

really think it depends. some women like the alpha male type and others like the quieter, more modest kind. sure, if you're after the sorority chicks, then you need to be the alpha male type. but not all men are after the typical blue-eyed blonde.

 

[swisloc]

Originally Posted by cheapmutha

confidence means more than anything else. you can be very good looking, dress well, and not be confident in yourself and no one will ever notice how attractive and well dressed you are. at the same time, you can be average and dress poorly, but pull beautiful women because of confidence in yourself.

+1. while i agree with the general sentiments of the OP, i find the above to be more accurate, and corroberated by women. i used to think i was on eof the "unattractive, average guys" but at some point realized that being confident in myself, AND confident in my personal style (well dressed or not) worked in calling attention to myself from the ladies. It was only after this, that i started really paying attention to style/clothes.

 

[texas_jack]

Originally Posted by sloaney

really think it depends. some women like the alpha male type and others like the quieter, more modest kind. sure, if you're after the sorority chicks, then you need to be the alpha male type. but not all men are after the typical blue-eyed blonde.

I wouldn't confuse confidence and arrogance. I think all women like confidence. Most people like confidence in general regardless of sex but for men it is more important as we have to make the first move.

 

[Frittata]

Originally Posted by sloaney

....
Good taste is extremely rare in Africa, Asia, and the United States, and even on online sartorial forums.
....

 

[TheFoo]

If you're trying to say that physical attractiveness and taste in wardrobe are independent measures and often the former is more significant in determining whether a bystander considers a person to be, generally speaking, 'attractive", then I'm not sure there's much to debate.

However, the relevance of this distinction does not necessarily warrant it much attention: for many, it is much more cost-efficient to improve their clothes than improve their body. While gain for gain, one might concede that physical attractiveness nets you more 'attractiveness' overall, such gains may simply be to pricey (effort, time, money, etc.) as compared to the price of improving style.

Also, your criticism of the styles of clothing shown in the Sartorial Excellence photos implies to me that you are assessing style and taste based on measures very different than the individuals in those photos. Personally, I must say that I find the blue-on-blue-on-blue outfit you describe in your post not the least bit tasteful or attractive.

Finally, you assume that general 'attractiveness' is the only reason one tries to dress well. This is a problematic notion on several counts. Here are two. First of all, 'taste' often stems from decorum, tradition, and appropriateness--all qualities that are distinct from what will increase your attractivness. A construction worker with a perfect physique that women swoon over in torn jeans and a white t-shirt will not cut it in a business environment, on date with your girlfriend at a nice restaurant, or at a place of worship. Second, you presume that certain attributes such as formality or appropriateness, which may lead to less emphasis on physique, do not have a psychological effect on a bystanders perception of one's attractiveness.

On a sidenote, I cannot help but take some offense at your statement with regard to taste and its lack thereof in America, Asia, etc. I'm not sure that in comparing your average middle-class European to your average middle-class American or Asian the European will be found to have more 'taste'. Of course, the empirical basis for settling such a dispute is neither available nor assessable, but my main point is that your quickness to make such a statement on the matter reveals a lack of good judgment.

 

[fastrunningmom]

I found it ironic to come upon this thread after having just read the thread titled, "Classic and Timelessly Cool Casual Looks (Pics)". As I looked at some of the pictures posted, I wondered if it was the clothes that made Steve McQueen, Paul Newman, Sean Connery, et. al., cool, or if they would look cool no matter what they wore, simply because of their attractiveness.

Saying that the construction worker with the great build looks better because more of his build is showing is judging with a male eye. Most women would be just as turned on by that fellow as a good looking man in a beautiful suit with no skin showing except his hands and face. Better yet, put the guy with the great build in a suit.

 

[Tampan]

Originally Posted by sloaney

Good taste is extremely rare in Africa, Asia, and the United States, and even on online sartorial forums.
You forgot Australia.

I imagine "good taste" means traditional European taste, which does have plenty of scope for fine tuning. You will find that, outside of Europe, there are proportionately less Europeans. These other people have refined very different traditions, with different results (except where cultures have been hindered by European expectations).

For alternative societies with great taste your sensibilities probably extend to the women in Vietnam. Particularly in the bigger cities, they have taken the ao doi and refined it, with austerity and tailored precision, such that any other costume would seem casual. It could never be described as "rare". It's definitely more attractive than a bloke in a suit, regardless of where said bloke might come from.

 

[skalogre]

Fine, I'll bite. So how do you quantify "attractiveness" anyway? One paragraph maximum. Hint: biologists, anthropologists and sociologists have been fighting with the issue for decades with no clear results. A lot of it still is indeed

 

[ChicagoRon]

Obviously, attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder..... but the difference between one judge and another is generally his / her priorities.

For example, there are a number of categories of attractiveness:

Physical Apperarance
Strength
Constitution
Financial Stability
Fragrance
Intelligence
Reproductive Ability
Generosity
Misc. Tangible Skills
etc.

Each can be subdivided into a number of attributes:

Physical Appearance:
Hair, Body weight, body shape, eyes, smile, symmetry, etc.

Intelligence:
Common sense, conversationalism, creativity, sense of humor

Misc. Tangible skills:
Ability to cook, sew, select good wine, etc.

One's personal priorities dictate which of these traits are more/less important. For example, a rich person may put less stock in another person's financial security than physical appearance, because they are already financially secure. Someone who is intelligent may emphasize intelligence in judging another person's attractiveness because they are easier to relate with.

That's my $.02 based on articles I've read and personal experience.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Sloaney-

First of all, I tend to agree with you on the overall state of taste in America. Remember that we are a young contry and have not had time to build up some of the aewthetic traditions that exist in Europe. That being said, while London has a long history of aesthetics, the current state of dress and style borders on the obscene. It is every bit as bad as any city that you find here.

As far as physical attractiveness goes, I am just going to go with what I got and not worry much about it. I am not a guy who works out and it just doesn't fall high on my priority list. Certainly I am not going to judge my own attractiveness, but I live a happy life, have a wonderful and pretty wife and am generally happy, so no matter what my overall score is it hasn't kept me from living a life that I like.

As an aside, one of the things that makes me chuckle is the fact that most people who make blanke negative comments about others on here have never posted a picture of their body much less their face. I think that your theories, while interesting, will be more fleshed out once you go ahead and do so.

 

[LabelKing]

There are different aspects of male beauty. There is of course, what you talk about--the alpha male construction worker. There is also the more modest feminine look as well as the androgynous look. Oscar Wilde would have preferred the latter than the overly aggressive male as do some females. However, letting myself be a Male Image Consultant, I've read some "studies" that show women prefer vaguely feminine looking male faces. The slim boy look is preferred on the runways: