The What Are You Wearing Today (WAYWT) Discussion Thread, Part II

[TheFoo]

Talking about clothes with Foo is not even that fun to begin with because his approach to clothing has always been to reduce aspects of clothes down to some sort of pseudoscientific drivel that conforms to his (and no one else’s) worldview and use that to calculate the best possible or most ideal outfit in a given scenario, or to alternatively be used as an “objective” and “irrefutable” argument as to why someone else’s outfit is bad. It’s such a drab and dull way to look at clothing.

Trying to describe or make a case for why I think something should not be a crime. I’d happily invite others to challenge my views and share their own.

What I don’t have much patience for is: (1) attacks based on presumptions about who or what I am and (2) non-specific / non-constructive insults.

 

[lefty]

Me thinking about what I have that looks like it came from "page 32 of the LL Bean catalogue for $120 all-in" while wearing Moscots and Portuguese Flannel from NMWA.

Got it.

Whatever eye and ear protection.
LL Bean shirt.
HD gloves.
Husqvarna chainsaw chaps.
Husqvarna Rancher.

lefty

 

[Thin White Duke]

Can’t believe we got five pages in and nobody posted this:

 

[Parker]

I don’t totally love this
Love the individual pieces in particular the jacket, but sloped shoulders extenuated probably isn’t great aesthetics. Also, looking for help pairing the outfit with diff shoes. The lookbook was styled with white sneakers with a gum sole but I haven’t found a pair I really love.

Sleeves down and up…here I guess I was forcing a Robert Geller look with bomber silhouette.


View attachment 2241661

View attachment 2241663

cool jacket, toasty.

 

[symphvaria]

Trying to describe or make a case for why I think something should not be a crime. I’d happily invite others to challenge my views and share their own.

What I don’t have much patience for is: (1) attacks based on presumptions about who or what I am and (2) non-specific / non-constructive insults.

None of the behaviors I described are crimes either, it's just not very interesting to talk to or about, because you're dead set in your beliefs and present them as imperative fact. No one here is ever going to convince you that your sweatpants fit looks more like a toddler than any outfit here with "voluminous pants", because you're totally convinced (or you want to be totally convinced) that the criteria you've laid out is a guaranteed formula for a toddler silhouette, regardless of how other people actually perceive either outfit. Any conversation to be had based on this is effectively just discussion on your terms, in which there is no winning because all the ground rules conform to your world view and your world view alone. None of this is conducive for interesting or informative discussion between two parties, let alone anyone else in the thread; can you blame people for not being interested in challenging your world view?

 

[TheFoo]

None of the behaviors I described are crimes either, it's just not very interesting to talk to or about, because you're dead set in your beliefs and present them as imperative fact. No one here is ever going to convince you that your sweatpants fit looks more like a toddler than any outfit here with "voluminous pants", because you're totally convinced (or you want to be totally convinced) that the criteria you've laid out is a guaranteed formula for a toddler silhouette, regardless of how other people actually perceive either outfit. Any conversation to be had based on this is effectively just discussion on your terms, in which there is no winning because all the ground rules conform to your world view and your world view alone. None of this is conducive for interesting or informative discussion between two parties, let alone anyone else in the thread; can you blame people for not being interested in challenging your world view?

What is with the obtuseness around “toddler silhouette”?

My son is 4. He looks a lot like this, because his pants have a lot of volume and taper sharply at the ankle. The effect is particularly pronounced when combined with a looser, boxier shirt that adds visual width to the torso and de-emphasizes the chest and shoulders.

It’s very cute. I just don’t understand the appeal on a grown man.

I suspect folks will look back a few years from now and agree. Just as all of you currently make fun of skinny / slim-fit jeans as abominations when they were all but the accepted norm in this thread not too long ago.

 

[symphvaria]

What is with the obtuseness around “toddler silhouette”?

View attachment 2242501

My son is 4. He looks a lot like this, because his pants have a lot of volume and taper sharply at the ankle. The effect is particularly pronounced when combined with a looser, boxier shirt that adds visual width to the torso and de-emphasizes the chest and shoulders.

It’s very cute. I just don’t understand the appeal on a grown man.

I suspect folks will look back a few years from now and agree. Just as all of you currently make fun of skinny / slim-fit jeans as abominations when they were all but the accepted norm in this thread not too long ago.

I don't know how to break it to you, but that silhouette literally looks almost exactly like your fit pics with exception of the pants tapering at the ankle. Like, the resemblance is uncanny. I know saying this for the 15th time won't convince you, but I felt it needed to be said again regardless.

 

[TheFoo]

I don't know how to break it to you, but that silhouette literally looks almost exactly like your fit pics with exception of the pants tapering at the ankle. Like, the resemblance is uncanny. I know saying this for the 15th time won't convince you, but I felt it needed to be said again regardless.

Dude, that is the key distinction I’ve mentioned.

 

[symphvaria]

Dude, that is the key distinction I’ve mentioned.

Yes, and that is why there is no winning in a discussion/debate/argument with you. Your pseudoscientific criteria created on your own terms will always favor your own outfits and eschew others; no amount of other people pointing out that your own criteria has no bearing on how they perceive your clothes or other peoples' clothes matters. Again, can you blame people for not being interested in challenging your world view, when every conversation with you is a lost cause from the outset?

 

[NorCal]

Foo, why do you wear Chrome Hearts? What about a LA rocker/coke head/sleezy/dirt bag/ gothy look appeals to YOU?

 

[NorCal]

What is with the obtuseness around “toddler silhouette”?

View attachment 2242501

My son is 4. He looks a lot like this, because his pants have a lot of volume and taper sharply at the ankle. The effect is particularly pronounced when combined with a looser, boxier shirt that adds visual width to the torso and de-emphasizes the chest and shoulders.

It’s very cute. I just don’t understand the appeal on a grown man.

I suspect folks will look back a few years from now and agree. Just as all of you currently make fun of skinny / slim-fit jeans as abominations when they were all but the accepted norm in this thread not too long ago.

The super skinny jean thing was a good 10-15 years ago. Time is indeed a cruel mistress.

 

[symphvaria]

The super skinny jean thing was a good 10-15 years ago. Time is indeed a cruel mistress.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that, as far as this side of the forum goes, there are looks that look great only within the context of their own time. And there's nothing wrong with that, it's not trying to be "timeless classic menswear" (that looks dated today anyways) to begin with. Gauging every outfit with that sort of yardstick just takes the fun out of fashion.

 

[NorCal]

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that, as far as this side of the forum goes, there are looks that look great only within the context of their own time. And there's nothing wrong with that, it's not trying to be "timeless classic menswear" (that looks dated today anyways) to begin with. Gauging every outfit with that sort of yardstick just takes the fun out of fashion.

Plus, I think it can still look fine for the right person. Sometimes you just pick a look and stick with it, nothing wrong with that.

 

[nahneun]

What is with the obtuseness around “toddler silhouette”?

View attachment 2242501

My son is 4. He looks a lot like this, because his pants have a lot of volume and taper sharply at the ankle. The effect is particularly pronounced when combined with a looser, boxier shirt that adds visual width to the torso and de-emphasizes the chest and shoulders.

It’s very cute. I just don’t understand the appeal on a grown man.

I suspect folks will look back a few years from now and agree. Just as all of you currently make fun of skinny / slim-fit jeans as abominations when they were all but the accepted norm in this thread not too long ago.

:| actually your stubbornness and lack of self-awareness is far beyond anyone else's in this thread :|...

 

[TheFoo]

Foo, why do you wear Chrome Hearts? What about a LA rocker/coke head/sleezy/dirt bag/ gothy look appeals to YOU?

I could try to answer this with respect to my nostalgic memories of what I thought was cool in the 90’s and 00’s when I was in high school and college, or perhaps introspect on the transgressive appeal contra being an outwardly straight-laced finance professional, or talk about how the vibe resonates with my neighborhood and city life, etc., but—

Am I supposed to be able to answer this? Does it matter? Is one sort of answer more credible than another? Isn’t it enough just that I think it’s cool?

Not that you are necessarily positing such, but others have suggested that one needs the right cultural credentials or lifestyle to wear certain kinds of fashion. I bristle at the notion.

Not trying to be hostile at all. Just gently pushing back on the premise that others might assume as part of your question.