1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

What do you wear when you go out?

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by MilanoStyle, Apr 27, 2004.

  1. LA Guy

    LA Guy Opposite Santa Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Messages:
    33,419
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Location:
    Moscow, Idaho
    Resort to violence? I wouldn't be resorting to violence. It'd be my number one option.
     
  2. Sevcom

    Sevcom Senior member

    Messages:
    342
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    You mean Paul Newman? If so, I second that. He was a little goofier in Butch Cassidy (co-starring Redford), but still a very cool mofo.

    As for wearing suits for clubbing, etc, I think you can get away with a simple lace-up or monkstrap. It'd have to be plain and slim--I'm thinking John Lobb's Perrier. No double soles, no wingtips, no cap-toes.
     
  3. LA Guy

    LA Guy Opposite Santa Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Messages:
    33,419
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Location:
    Moscow, Idaho
    Yes. I always get those two mixed up, for some reason.
     
  4. gregory

    gregory Senior member

    Messages:
    552
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Your advice is appreciated. The problem is that this entity 'yourself' is being continually defined and exists only through the sum of actions and choosing. Every choice I make is a redefinition of myself, and hence I cannot 'aspire to be myself' since 'myself' does not exist as a complete entity until I am dead. And who among us can truly say that we have not been influenced by some people we look up to and choose to aspire to be more like them? If by "being oneself" one means looking back at one's past, this is a poor guide for life because it implies repeating the history of choices and actions that one has made in the past. It is better to look outside, and combine the best parts of the best people, to better oneself. To put my liberal arts education to good use, let me quote Jean Paul-Sartre. Read it in full--it may change your life. I am not an atheist, but I find this philosophy a very good guide for navigating life. "If one considers an article of manufacture as, for example, a book or a paper-knife "” one sees that it has been made by an artisan who had a conception of it; and he has paid attention, equally, to the conception of a paper-knife and to the pre-existent technique of production which is a part of that conception and is, at bottom, a formula. Thus the paper-knife is at the same time an article producible in a certain manner and one which, on the other hand, serve a definite purpose, for one cannot suppose that a man would produce a paper-knife without knowing what it was for. Let us say, then, of the paperknife that its essence that is to say the sum of the formulae and the qualities which made its production and its definition possible "” precedes its existence. The presence of such "” and "” such a paper-knife or book is thus determined before my eyes. Here, then, we are viewing the world from a technical standpoint, and we can say that production precedes existence. When we think of God as the creator, we are thinking of him, most of the time, as a supernal artisan. Whatever doctrine we may be considering, whether it be a doctrine like that of Descartes, or of Leibnitz himself, we always imply that the will follows, more or less, from the understanding or at least accompanies it, so that when God creates he knows precisely what he is creating. Thus, the conception of man in the mind of God is comparable to that of the paper-knife in the mind of the artisan: God makes man according to a procedure and a conception, exactly as the artisan manufactures a paper-knife, following a definition and a formula. Thus each individual man is the realisation of a certain conception which dwells in the divine understanding. In the philosophic atheism of the eighteenth century, the notion of God is suppressed, but not, for all that, the idea that essence is prior to existence; something of that idea we still find everywhere, in Diderot, in Voltaire and even in Kant. Man possesses a human nature; that "human nature," which is the conception of human being, is found in every man; which means that each man is a particular example of a universal conception, the conception of Man. In Kant, this universality goes so far that the wild man of the woods, man in the state of nature and the bourgeois are all contained in the same definition and have the same fundamental qualities. Here again, the essence of man precedes that historic existence which we confront in experience. Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. That being is man or, as Heidegger has it, the human reality. What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world "” and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing "” as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism. ... Quietism is the attitude of people who say, "let others do what I cannot do." The doctrine I am presenting before you is precisely the opposite of this, since it declares that there is no reality except in action. It goes further, indeed, and adds, "Man is nothing else but what he purposes, he exists only in so far as he realises himself, he is therefore nothing else but the sum of his actions, nothing else but what his life is." Hence we can well understand why some people are horrified by our teaching. For many have but one resource to sustain them in their misery, and that is to think, "Circumstances have been against me, I was worthy to be something much better than I have been. I admit I have never had a great love or a great friendship; but that is because I never met a man or a woman who were worthy of it; if I have not written any very good books, it is because I had not the leisure to do so; or, if I have had no children to whom X could devote myself it is because I did not find the man I could have lived with. So there remains within me a wide range of abilities, inclinations and potentialities, unused but perfectly viable, which endow me with a worthiness that could never be inferred from the mere history of my actions." But in reality and for the existentialist, there is no love apart from the deeds of love; no potentiality of love other than that which is manifested in loving; there is no genius other than that which is expressed in works of art. The genius of Proust is the totality of the works of Proust; the genius of Racine is the series of his tragedies, outside of which there is nothing. Why should we attribute to Racine the capacity to write yet another tragedy when that is precisely what he "” did not write? In life, a man commits himself, draws his own portrait and there is nothing but that portrait. No doubt this thought may seem comfortless to one who has not made a success of his life. On the other hand, it puts everyone in a position to understand that reality alone is reliable; that dreams, expectations and hopes serve to define a man only as deceptive dreams abortive hopes, expectations unfulfilled; that is to say, they define him negatively, not positively. Nevertheless, when one says, "You are nothing else but what you live," it does not imply that an artist is to be judged solely by his works of art, for a thousand other things contribute no less to his definition as a man. What we mean to say is that a man is no other than a series of undertakings, that he is the sum, the organisation, the set of relations that constitute these undertakings." Full text (lovely reading) http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/marxist....re.html
     
  5. imageWIS

    imageWIS Senior member

    Messages:
    20,008
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    New York City / Buenos Aires
    Also, Robert Redford in his Cool Hand Luke days.
    You mean Paul Newman? If so, I second that. He was a little goofier in Butch Cassidy (co-starring Redford), but still a very cool mofo. As for wearing suits for clubbing, etc, I think you can get away with a simple lace-up or monkstrap. It'd have to be plain and slim--I'm thinking John Lobb's Perrier. No double soles, no wingtips, no cap-toes.
    Speaking of Robert Redford, he played the ultimate sartorial figure: Jay Gatsby, with the three-piece suits, the Turnbull shirts and ties plus that wonderful yellow Rolls Royce. Regarding (movie) style he overtakes Phillipe's Valmont in every way, he is better dressed, has a better car and more power, of course he is lacking in the relationship department (that damn Daisy). As one reviewer said: "The movie is an opulent, stylish extravaganza that may be more faithful to the "look" of Fitzgerald's novel than to its spirit, yet brings a good deal of entertainment along the way." Jon. Yes, this was my attempt to end the whole Valmont discussion.
     
  6. norcaltransplant

    norcaltransplant Senior member

    Messages:
    2,408
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Location:
    NYC/Brooklyn
    My going wardrobe depends a lot on the season... FYI, I have been recently relegated to the B&T/wannabe yuppie crowd, much to the disdain of LA Guy and Pete. So, my particular wardrobe usually consists of:

    Winter: Wool flannel or worsted wool slacks with a dress shirt or light knitwear and sport coat. Boots or monkstraps.
    Fall/Spring: Tropical weight wool slacks or cotton pants, my favs are from Paul Smith and Co-Op, and a button down. Either FC or something with color... A sport coat is optional.
    Summer: Linen or cotton pants, SS shirt. Oh, and Im looking to buy a pair caramel or lighter colored spit toe bluchers.

    Jeans can be substituted in any of these situations. I wear boots only when the weather looks a bit nasty, otherwise I prefer loafers, monstraps, or a pair of med brown captoe bals with a medallion.
     
  7. Mike C.

    Mike C. Senior member

    Messages:
    1,528
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Location:
    New York City
    You must be dying with the nightlife in Boston.. I was there a few months ago, and all the places had a stupid dress code. They just don't "get it." London is the same way too. which surprised me.
     
  8. LA Guy

    LA Guy Opposite Santa Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Messages:
    33,419
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Location:
    Moscow, Idaho
    In Boston, I usually go to music clubs with cool bands, rather than going "clubbing". The Middle East is pretty good, as in Paradise, and my local joint is Toad. People recommend Tiki the Bear, but I've never been. Avoid any place in Faneuil Hall or Boylston St., which is usually full or cutout blondes being hit on by lame white dudes (blue shirt, khakis or "dress pants", dark shoes, and short back and sides haircut with too much product.)

    On the plus side, my NYC and LA friends who have visited me here have all agreed that getting dates in Boston is like shooting ducks in a barrel compared to in those other cities. Thank you Boston men for being so lame.
     
  9. Brian SD

    Brian SD Senior member

    Messages:
    9,760
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Location:
    Tokyo
    I can't stand "clubbing." I usually either 1) hate the music selection and thus can't enjoy myself, or 2) when I find a club where I like the music being played, I'm surrounded by greasy drugged out hipster teenagers who find glamour in the "scene," which exists only for image. It's kind of funny to see rich kids spend extra to make themselves look like starving artists. [​IMG] I prefer to go to Jazz Nights and smaller unannounced shows at coffee houses. Occasionally I go to big shows (i.e. Coachella this weekend), but I'm so sick of the clientel that I keep my music obsession to myself and to a few of my closest friends. As for the "cool" actors, I've always thought Benicio Del Toro was awesome because he's so incredibly comfortable. No one would ever doubt his personality, because he always looks so comfortable as himself. He's not absurd in any way, and he isn't a specific image, he's just himself, and that makes him awesome.
     
  10. PeterMetro

    PeterMetro Senior member

    Messages:
    796
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    I think it's TT the Bear's. Check out Wally's in the south end too.
     
  11. imageWIS

    imageWIS Senior member

    Messages:
    20,008
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    New York City / Buenos Aires
    What was the age group of group of your friends and the age group of the people they were picking up? Because, I my luck sucked last time I was in Boston.

    Jon.
     
  12. LA Guy

    LA Guy Opposite Santa Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Messages:
    33,419
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Location:
    Moscow, Idaho
    We are all in our mid twenties to very early thirties. The girls we talked to were college age up to their late twenties, I would guess. It just seems that Boston girls in general do not have their guard up nearly as much as in NYC and LA. Seriously, some club girls in NYC will literally not acknowledge the presence of a guy standing right in front of her introducing himself. It's luckily never happened to me, but whoah, that is cold. Can't comment about Boca Raton.
     
  13. MilanoStyle

    MilanoStyle Senior member

    Messages:
    1,674
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Dudes .. Go to montreal if you want to party (if you can). Montreal girls are very sexy and playful. You can grab their ass and they won't say a word .. sometimes even boobs [​IMG] Toronto girls are pretty sexy, hot, and well dressed .. but not with personality of montreal girls.
     
  14. LA Guy

    LA Guy Opposite Santa Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Messages:
    33,419
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Location:
    Moscow, Idaho
    Totally hijacking the thread, but this is just not cool. It's a sad dude that needs to cop a feel and just hope not to get backhanded (seriously, do this in LA, and you are gonna feel the heat - no doubt.) The whole idea is that not that a girl will tolerate you, but will pretty much want you to the point where she is making the moves on you.
     
  15. Ambulance Chaser

    Ambulance Chaser Senior member

    Messages:
    9,790
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2002
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    that mini-thread within a thread about ryan phillipe sounded a little creepy to me. gregory, aspire to be yourself and no one else.
    Your advice is appreciated. The problem is that this entity 'yourself' is being continually defined and exists only through the sum of actions and choosing. Every choice I make is a redefinition of myself, and hence I cannot 'aspire to be myself' since 'myself' does not exist as a complete entity until I am dead. And who among us can truly say that we have not been influenced by some people we look up to and choose to aspire to be more like them? If by "being oneself" one means looking back at one's past, this is a poor guide for life because it implies repeating the history of choices and actions that one has made in the past. It is better to look outside, and combine the best parts of the best people, to better oneself.
    Please tell me that you will not be appearing on MTV's "I Want A Famous Face."
     
  16. PeterMetro

    PeterMetro Senior member

    Messages:
    796
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    Funny, I've had the exact opposite experience. When I approached the girls in Boston, they would react like I was making some inappropriate suggestion. This was after literally just saying hello - as if they didn't want people to get the wrong idea about them, didn't want to come across as sluts.

    Then I moved to New York, and within a week I was getting laid like Errol Flynn. To quote Pootie Tang - "Ain't come one, but many tine tanies." I kept that pace until I met a beautiful 22 year old bartender with brown hair and the body of a 17 year old, and now I'm hooked.
     
  17. LabelKing

    LabelKing Senior member

    Messages:
    25,745
    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Location:
    Constantinople
    Aside from Malkovich in "Les Dangerous Lisasons" etc. I personall think Dr.Hannibal Lecter strikes a fine figure in terms of style, and subtle meance. [​IMG]
     
  18. LA Guy

    LA Guy Opposite Santa Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Messages:
    33,419
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Location:
    Moscow, Idaho
    Okay, I can't compete with that.
     
  19. MilanoStyle

    MilanoStyle Senior member

    Messages:
    1,674
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    You can grab their ass and they won't say a word .. sometimes even boobs Â
    Totally hijacking the thread, but this is just not cool. Â It's a sad dude that needs to cop a feel and just hope not to get backhanded (seriously, do this in LA, and you are gonna feel the heat - no doubt.) Â The whole idea is that not that a girl will tolerate you, but will pretty much want you to the point where she is making the moves on you.
    that's right .. I won't do that in any where .. and I do not initiate .. the girls do that for me .. You will know what i mean when you go montreal and party.
     
  20. Alias

    Alias Senior member

    Messages:
    1,536
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Location:
    Washington DC
    Me, I wear whatever's clean.

    But once I wore a pair of light cotton trousers, one of my Jantzen shirts (sharkfin collar), a light colored tie, and a dark suit jacket. I wore my bone-colored suede Ferragamos, the ones I scored off of eBay for like 40 bucks. The shirt wasn't tucked in, the collar wasn't buttoned, and the tie was loose around my neck. Everyone loved it.

    Now I know there are some die-hards that would shriek at the thought of wearing a suit jacket without its matching trousers, but I find it to be a sort of guilty pleasure: You know you're breaking some rule, somewhere, but the vast majority of people you run into won't know the difference, and compliment you just the same.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by