The main problem with pleats is twofold. First, they often make people look fatter than they are; second, they often billow out when you sit down, making you look bloated.
If your suits are well enough made that your pleats do neither, then no one cares.
However, unpleated pants do, in general, create a smoother line, which is always good.
I agree that pockets on dress shirts are dumb. If you put anything in them, they sag and look bad. So what's the fucking point?
In my opinion pleated pants are okay only if you are at least two sizes leaner than average. Only a completely lean guy (which I wish I was but am not) can look good in pleats. I am talking looks only. What happens to be stylish at the moment I have no idea about.
Belt/shoes is a good thing, unless the shoes are white tennies. White belt never good. White non-athletic shoes never good.
The thing is that pleated pants are unflattering on both the overly skinny (they just look puffy) and the even slightly overweight (they look apologetic). For the few poised at the golden mean, sure, they can look fine.
I'm not certain what the problem is with pocketed dress shirts -- I think she's picturing the classic engineer-shirt: thin white fabric so you can really see the sleeveless undershirt underneath, and the pocket shows up starkly against the translucency of the fabric. But pockets, on a nice heavy dress shirt, are certainly fine.
Not as rich as you think-- I know someone who lives near the factory. Gets me things when the sales come. The great thing about unhemmed pants: they'll actually fit!
Pleats are unflattering on women ('I know, Smithers, we'll make the fabric gather and fold just where women start to curve and hold excess weight!'). They're not quite as bad on men, but unfortunately that only means there's a slightly wider range of body type on which it looks good.
I think you're okay if the suit is expensive (alas, I don't know if '$1500 worth of suits' is one or two really nice pieces or ten crappy ones), because it will still drape well. But yeah, if you're buying a suit now, and not freakishly tall like Labs, get non-pleated things.
Why is the man in the Sansabelt ad wearing a belt?
And why does he look like he's courting the older gemtleman, whose hands are clasped decorously, perhaps to obstruct the young stud's view of his genitals? Weird.
I think it's the other man—the man posed so as to obscure any view of his potential belt, which may or may not be there—who's wearing the sansabelt duds.
Come back in 5 years and see Sherri make the same confident statements about diametrically opposed fashion choices.
In the meantime, read Simmel on Fashion (1904). "Fashion is a form of imitation an so of social equalization, but, paradoxically, in changing incessantly it differentiates one time from another and one social stratum from another. It unites those of a social class and segregates them from others ... [It] concerns externals and superficialities where irrationality does no harm. It signals the lack of personal freedom; hence it characterizes the female and the middle class, whose increased social freedom is matched by intense individual subjugation."
If I met a woman who said "Write that down in your diarrhea Har Har," even every so often, I think I'd be intrigued. And I'd like to say I wouldn't date smokers, but there's something kind of hot about smoking, unfortunately. Maybe it wears off.
My principal dating rule (back in the day) was, I would not go out with anyone who refused to go out with me. This seemed to narrow the field quite substantially.
Shirts without pockets are annoying if you wear glasses. It is much better to put glasses in your shirt pockets while you read than in your jacket or pants pocket. From the online catalogs, it looks like Banana Republic has gone pocketless while J.Crew is holding the line. "Banana Republic" is a stupid name anyway.
A good way to dress relatively stylish for men is to buy everything from the same relatively stylish store. I am thinking J.Crew. It isn't cheap though. Which is probably the point.
A good way to dress relatively stylish for men is to buy everything from the same relatively stylish store. I am thinking J.Crew. It isn't cheap though. Which is probably the point.
A (straight) male friend of mine started buying all his clothes from Banana Republic, he suddenly, overnight, started looking ten times better, got about 500% more successful with women. And he did it without much hassle or vanity since he was keeping it simple, with the one store--credibly maintaining his straight male lack of interest in fashion. It worked really well for him.
Here's what the WSJ said recently about pleats vs. flat:
And even as flat-fronts take over in stores, some fashion designers are already returning to pleated styles for the next season. Men in pleats walked the runways at the spring fashion shows of designers from Kenneth Cole to Prada. Menswear trade publication DNR recently ran the cover story "Are Pleats Back?"
Also, Tripp may be fashion challenged:
Some experts say, however, that flat-fronts may not always be the best option for some body types. "If you're someone with a stomach, you sometimes have to go with a pleated pant," says Elena Castaneda, a New York-based image consultant who shops for professional men.
I can't believe someone beat me to a quip about mock turtles & dickies. I used to love mock turtlenecks. I think they'll make a comeback.
Call me intensely individually subjugated, but every single one of those rules is completely correct. Even the rare body type that can pull off pleated pants is still guilty by association with the pleated atrocities downtown each and every day.
Ah. Well, I guess I don't agree that wanting to be remarkable is such a bad thing.
Since the other thread has evolved into a discussion of art and aesthetics, I guess this is the default place to plead the case of those of us who want to look good and not feel bad about it.
On the other hand, maybe the argument has already been made: it's possible to want to look one's best without being a fuckwit about it, blah blah double standard fishcakes.
I would submit that ogged, with his byzantine system of rules and amendments that constitutes his view of what to wear on a day-to-day basis, is a form of fashion-consciousness even more refined than the style mavens whose wits he declares to be of the fuck. Do wear this, don't wear that, this sends this image, that will make people think I'm X...what is this but a sophisticated fashion sense of his own devising? To put on the "unremarkable" look requires no small bit of effort, in spite of ogged's protests to the contrary; judgment calls abound.
I'm sure that I am fashionably challenged, but I'm still not 'getting' that fashion advice.
I've got a little tummy - 36 waist with a 38 roll above it, but I'm not what my son calls "All gut no butt." Pleats make me look fatter. Even I can see that. So why does the portly gentleman have to go with pleats? Is the idea that he wears his pants below the gut and the pleats somehow disguise that? Or maybe he wears Grampa pants up above his navel and the pleat expand to cover the gut?
It's been over a year since I wore my suit, and I don't remember if the pants are pleated or not, but in the realm of ordinary pants pleated is much more comfortable for me than flat-front, so despite the fact that I've come to acknowledge that flat-front looks better, I'm going with comfort.
My dear Joe, you're attacking a position I haven't taken. Even in the post, I concede that having a sense of style is fine, and in the comments I've said that thinking about fashion is fine. It's the act of looking stylish that I (and not only I) find objectionable. Anyway, relax, you weren't that stylish.
Ogged is like that character from Les Miserables who prides himself on understanding all the argots of the underclasses, and on speaking only the most proper sense, thus practicing the software dictum "be strict in what you send out, but lenient in what you receive" avant la lettre.
No sneakers or hiking boots unless you're running or hiking. You need leather shoes not only for dress up but also for wearing casually around town.
This is not a world in which I want to live. We've developed comfortable shoes. I can understand pretending that such things don't exist when someone is paying me to do so -- but now I'm supposed to do it on my off hours, too? Nuts to that.
Also, ogged's ridiculous position is completely correct.
All right, fair enough, but let's make a distinction between "stylish" and "dresses to look good". "Stylish" is loaded, since it suggests a rudderless, any-way-the-wind-blows herd person. But still, such a person is a person made of straw. Most everyone I know pays attention to how they look and how they dress; different circles have different unspoken fashion codes, and yours may be different than mine, but that doesn't make it superior or all-emcompassing.
#60: I believe the word you want is not "stylish," but "trendy."
#62: The argument in favor of Nikes for all occasions is ludicrous. First, they are expensive; second, they are developed for athletics. Normal everyday leather shoes that are more than comfortable enough for normal everyday events are, if anything, often less expensive than Nikes (and by "Nikes" I mean "any brand of what used to be called tennis shoes). And you don't look like some dork who doesn't know the difference between a basketball court and a place of business.
Whatever. In my understanding of the language, "sandals" and "clogs" are both subsets of "shoes". ("Boots", too!) When I hear "Birkenstocks" I think "sandals or clogs". (Non-Birkenstock brands manufacture sandals and clogs which I think of as "Birkenstocks", including e.g. Doc Marten and Teva.) I find them comfortable.
Historically, of course, finding people who don't know how to dress for places of business and are likely to spend time on basketball courts "dorky" has been a means of repression and is anti-feminist.
And "dorky" is not anti-feminist, I'm sorry. You could win this one by interrogating the norm of "professional" dress, perhaps, but not by criticizing "dorky." Indeed, I am prouder and prouder of "dorky," as it also insulates me from the charge that the business v. basketball court opposition is racist.
Well, I had mentioned "place of business," but you're right, that can cover a wide range of workplaces, at many of which Sketchers are perfectly acceptable. I was probably still imagining the suit pants pleats / no pleats thing.
I'm curious about what your evidence is for J. Crew clothes being cheaply made relative to other retailers' in the same general price range. My strong suspicion, given the nature of the textile industry, is that the perceived variation in quality is an illusion created by narcissism of minor difference.
My evidence is that the clothes I've bought there have been poorly made relative to equally-priced clothes I've bought elsewhere. Thin fabrics that wrinkle easily, buttons that come loose and fall off, unlined or only partly lined jackets and pants, etc. I don't buy men's clothes, though, so for all I know they're "good" relative to other men's clothing. But for women's clothing, in contrast, Ann Taylor is a much better buy.
Oh, but the dreaded Ann Taylor never fits right. The shoulders are much too big. French clothes fit me very well. I have a (from the thrift store) Christian Dior knit top which is divine.
Thank you for pointing out that white socks should be avoided! David Letterman wears the most superbly tailored suits, but he is always wearing cream-colored socks; I don't get it.
I really hate Ann Taylor. Not only do the clothes not fit right (too loose in certain places and too tight in others, always!), but it doesn't, at least the times I've been there, mesh at all with my personal sense of style.
#87 and 88: Huh. I'm not one with huge shoulders, especially not relative to my chest, but I haven't had a problem. I do find that their clothes, like a lot of other clothes, sometimes need slight alterations, mostly in the realm of hemming. But that's just the way it is.
#89: Please say you are kidding, and do not wear black socks with jeans and Skechers. (Sans T, damnit.)
Also, I have a pair of brown leather Skechers; and of I course I wear dark socks with them with jeans and a t-shirt. White socks look fucking horrible in that kind of get-up.
#92: Me, personally? No. I very seldom do anything that requires tennis shoes, full stop. In fact, I think the only tennies I own are 10-year old Chuck Taylors. I also pretty much don't wear shorts.
#95: Exactly. Or gray. Or fine, black athletic socks. But please god not black dress socks.
I was talking to the young aesthete, there. I don't wear black dress socks, as that would be ridiculous. It's the sheen of the fabric that you object to, not the color?
I dunno, probably sheen + texture + thickness. I don't approve of black socks with jeans, full stop, but at least if they're crew socks, or whatever the fuck Ben wants to call them, it's less ridiculous than wearing black dress socks with jeans would be.
But you don't approve of white socks with jeans, do you? I mean, you can wear those with tennis shoes and jeans if you're going to the library; but only if you're not looking at books stored above Z. Analytic bibliographies do not judge.
#101: Then the problem isn't the shoulders: it's the chest. (In Ann Taylor's clothing, that is.) I'm still surprised, though, given that you sound like you're basically the same size I am.
#103: Four possibilities. One is that I am way less bitchy than I pretend to be online. Two is that online I argue for the sake of clarity, while in real life I am much more willing to accept messiness. Three is that good looks and wit are more important than clothes. Four is that I didn't notice your socks.
108 -- I have taken to disambiguating squashed-together pseudonyms by inserting spaces and capitals as appropriate: E.g. Bostonian Girl; Bitch, Ph. D.; Slow Learner; -gg-d.
107: It's both. The chest doesn't fit right and the shoulders on the jackets drown me. I can't move my arms up at all without having everything scunch weirdly.
If any of you chaps come over to Europe, the best thing to wear is a loudly patterned Hawaiian shirt, bermuda shorts and a tartan ("plaid", I believe) sports jacket. And basketball boots. Accessorise with a camera hanging round the neck and a baseball hat.
I don't know, those fucking great high-ankled trainers you lot wear, look like small boats and cost $500.
My fashion advice is this. Wear a suit in the city. Buy new suits every year and they won't be too out of fashion. If you don't wear out your suits every year then you don't wear suits often enough. At the weekend, dress like a fucking brickie and keep an old blazer or some tweeds in the wardrobe for when your missus whines at you because you're going somewhere smart. Wear Doc Martens at the weekend because they are smart and practical in a fight. In the week, bankers wear loafers but brokers wear brogues and you would be best advised to wear brogues. thank you and goodnight.
I'm told that you can fly to Hong Kong or Mumbai or Singapore and get a very nice handmade suit, ties and set of shirts on the cheap, such that the total cost inclusive of airfare and accomodations is less than getting the equivalent made in the US or western Europe.
Also, dsquared, can you tell me why everyone in the UK with an internet connection is searching for jonathan+goodwin+naked over the past few days? It seems to have something to do with magic.
I don't know what it costs, but there are also companies which will measure you here (in major metropoloitan areas) and then send your measurements off to Hong Kong or Thailand to construct the garment. Most of them will pay for local alterations to the finished product. These services seemed aimed mainly at men. Google Hong Kong tailor.
Wear Doc Martens at the weekend because they are smart and practical in a fight.
Apparently these effete Europeans only fight on the weekends. Are there no rear-end collisions during the week? No annoying neighbours? Is it a lack of lager?
I'm beginning to suspect that dsquared's advice in 113 may not have been earnest. Hard to tell when he keeps lapsing into that strange, unidentified language.
bphd, I'm not arguing that there isn't a norm about not wearing tennis shoes, just that it shouldn't be needlessly expanded into casual wear. And sure, there are comfortable leather shoes, but nylon is innately both cheaper and more comfortable than leather. For a given amount of money, the tennis shoe ought to be more comfortable, and probably better made. They frequently aren't, but that's a whole other thing.
Anyway, I got a pair of non-athletic new balances for $30 a few years ago, and they're still fine -- and about a million times more comfortable than the $100 leather casual shoes I bought last weekend.
I'm told that you can fly to Hong Kong or Mumbai or Singapore and get a very nice handmade suit, ties and set of shirts on the cheap, such that the total cost inclusive of airfare and accomodations is less than getting the equivalent made in the US or western Europe.
You've been told that by the man who is selling them. I've tried something similar and they aren't all that good.
I've been to the opera in jeans and a sweatshirt, albeit that it was the Proms rather than a proper opera.
I hate that. I wrestle myself into the little black dress and pearls, wear the damn spike heels, and then half the people at the Met are in Dockers. If I have to dress up for the opera, everyone should.
But I accept the annoyance of having to dress up because I expect to be able to be surrounded by a bevy of other opera-goers looking glamorous. And then they cheat me out of it. Feh.
George WS Trow wants to be surrounded by others wearing hats so he can wear a hat without feeling self-conscious. It would be a market failure in hats if it wasn't just him.
Wear what you like, but if you wear jeans and a sweatshirt to the opera, I am going to mock you.
Greg Sandow, however, will salute you! I deliberately don't dress up to go to symphonies and the rest, as I think doing so exclusionary, creating the false impression that such music is the preserve of the wealthy and well-educated, that it's above the heads of most folk and can't be enjoyed without extensive qualification &c, and other reasons besides.
That's admirable, Ben, but it's also a tough call insofar as being dressed down is more likely to be read as disrespect than an egalitarian statement. Probably the polite way to go about it is to dress down, but also carry a sign explaining why.
I think I've lost the battle to make dressing down - or rather, not dressing up - respectable in all but the most formal situations. Unfortunately this has left me with a lot of worn out clothing and little sense of style to help me when I go shopping.
Seriously, there's lots of talk and concern about how the classical music biz, especially large symphonies and opera houses, are experiencing declining sales. Making the whole concert-going experience standoffish and formal (and elitist, which 141 is in spades—ever hear of rush tickets? or discounts for students? or maybe opera tickets should actually be lower-priced in general, and command the prices they do in part because of the general expectation that it's more about the society than the music anyway) doesn't help, and I can't imagine why you'd think things ought to be done that way other than "that's the way things are done".
Because I reject the argument that dressing appropriately for the occasion is "elitist."
For the record (and b/c Ben, of all people, is misrepresenting my argument in chat), I am not saying that if someone can't afford a decent suit, they have no right to go to the opera. Go, and enjoy, and be blessed. What I am saying is that people who CAN afford to dress appropriately, and who in fact have more or less appropriate clothing hanging in their damn closets, but who choose not to out of some condescending wish not to appear "elitist" (or more likely, b/c they are just too lazy to change clothes), annoy the crap out of me.
but who choose not to out of some condescending wish not to appear "elitist" (or more likely, b/c they are just too lazy to change clothes), annoy the crap out of me.
But you do realize that there are people who'd think, I like the music/performance but look at how everyone dresses and acts, that's not the place for me.
Also, 141 and 146 are clearly not the same argument.
I wasn't representing that as your argument specifically.
What damn difference does it make at whom I am annoyed? I don't walk up to people and scold them. I'm just saying, if you have season tickets to the opera and wear jeans and fleece--and I have seen people do this, back when I was a season ticket subscriber myself--I reserve the right to consider you an asshole.
I mean, honestly Ben, the primary problem with symphony and opera is the price of tickets. But if you want to try going the populist route, then wear jeans, sell popcorn and coke in the lobby, and let people talk during the performance.
#148: Yes, and now I've presented a third argument. I think there are many reasons not to wear jeans at the opera, just as there are many reasons not to wear jeans to someone's wedding (unless, of course, they are getting married outside and are that kind of people, in which case it is perfectly appropriate). And I honestly think that the reasons people put forth for doing so are mostly rationalizations, and the real reason is "I can't be bothered," which I think is very ridiculous, as going to the opera is something that one generally arranges in advance. You don't just wander in off the street.
I wasn't representing that as your argument specifically.
Ah. For some reason I thought that we were having a conversation, and you might have been relevantly addressing points raised earlier. I think that might have been prompted by the fact that you mentioned me by name, and I had earlier said something about the same topic that someone who was going to tendentiously misrepresent me might have construed as being the position you put forward to denounce? I'm not sure. I apologize for my haste.
I mean, honestly Ben, the primary problem with symphony and opera is the price of tickets. But if you want to try going the populist route, then wear jeans, sell popcorn and coke in the lobby, and let people talk during the performance.
Hey, I'd be all for all of those. (That is, I wouldn't like it if people flagrantly talked during a performance, but I'm naïve enough to think people wouldn't be that disruptive. I get really pissed off at the people who turn around to stare hatefully at anyone unlucky enough to shift a millimeter and cause his or her chair to squeak. They are true assholes.) Surely you see, though, that a de facto requirement of attire of such-and-such quality is an additional expense on top of the ticket price? And it's not just the cost, it's the way it makes the whole production into more than it should be—a, well, a production; a great to-do—when you're just going to hear some music. It is exclusionary.
I'm just saying, if you have season tickets to the opera and wear jeans and fleece--and I have seen people do this, back when I was a season ticket subscriber myself--I reserve the right to consider you an asshole.
But why? If I see a guy in a suit at a rock show, I don't think he's an asshole, or look down on him for dressing inappropriately to the scene.
I think there are many reasons not to wear jeans at the opera, just as there are many reasons not to wear jeans to someone's wedding (unless, of course, they are getting married outside and are that kind of people, in which case it is perfectly appropriate).
This particular example is giving me deja vu. Has this all gone down before?
And I honestly think that the reasons people put forth for doing so are mostly rationalizations, and the real reason is "I can't be bothered," which I think is very ridiculous, as going to the opera is something that one generally arranges in advance.
If you saw a guy in a suit at a rock show, you probably would think "what an asshole," but you would be thinking of the secondary definition of "asshole," which is, "a foolish individual, a putz," as opposed to the primary definition, "a person who is unkind or inconsiderate to others."
The secondary definition may be the older of the two, and you would not be remiss in using it in your thoughts.
For some reason I thought that we were having a conversation, and you might have been relevantly addressing points raised earlier. I think that might have been prompted by the fact that you mentioned me by name, and I had earlier said something about the same topic that someone who was going to tendentiously misrepresent me might have construed as being the position you put forward to denounce?
We were having a conversation, and other people joined in. I was addressing the group. I referred to you parenthetically in that particular comment, and in the third, not second perrson. And at the very least I'd hope that if I misrepresented an argument I would be interpreted as doing so inadvertently, rather than deliberately.
Moving on. Obviously, part of the problem is the disagreement about what the occasion--specifically, in this instance, the opera but extendable to the symphony, which is less formal--actually is. And of course it's not at all a new argument. So, for instance, one of the "proofs" of Evelina's innate superiority to her cousins is that she appreciates the *music* at the opera, rather than the occasion and the spectacle. But that is, itself, a form of snobbery, as the class distinction in that novel makes clear. On the other hand, we have Jane Austen, in which the aristocrats are usually the ones who care about occasion but lack "real taste." What's happening is that one is simply presenting an alternative form of snobbery.
It's particularly ironic, given that the primary aesthete's argument against opera back in the day was that it cared too much about "spectacle," rather than pure music--an argument one can still get into today over issues like casting, blocking, movement, supertitles, and so on. I freely admit that one reason I like the opera is because of the spectacle and, yes, the sense of occasion. Otherwise, why not save the price of the ticket and listen to it on a CD at home? Yes, the musical experience is somewhat less satisfying, but surely the comfort, convenience, and anti-elitism more than outweigh that.
I know I'm being a snot. It's a pet peeve of mine. I'm sorry.
I was actually in a group of people turned away from a casino for lack of appropriate shoes (which was annoying, but fine with me overall, because I had no desire to gamble).
If it's the sense of occasion you object to, then obviously what's going on is that we simply have different goals for the thing; that is, the clothing thing isn't really the point of the argument.
And I'm not arguing that people should be turned away at the door for not wearing a jacket. I'm just saying, as an informal statement of preference, that I think that people who don't dress up are morally wrong, and will go to hell when they die.
So, for instance, one of the "proofs" of Evelina's innate superiority to her cousins is that she appreciates the *music* at the opera, rather than the occasion and the spectacle. But that is, itself, a form of snobbery, as the class distinction in that novel makes clear.
The person who likes the music and doesn't care for the occasion (leaving spectacle aside) doesn't have to be a snob about it. (Who's Evelina?) Frankly I don't see the relevance. I'm not saying: all you people who like the occasion, you all suck, you're lesser than I am, go away. I mean, you need some pretext for the occasion, right? Pure occasion is hard to come by. But I think it's a little snotty to get mad at people who aren't concerned to fit into others' conception of what the occasion is because they aren't doing so. A likes the music, B likes dressing up and going out. Fine. They needn't look down on one another or become irked that the other is raining on the one's parade. It's petulant.
Otherwise, why not save the price of the ticket and listen to it on a CD at home? Yes, the musical experience is somewhat less satisfying, but surely the comfort, convenience, and anti-elitism more than outweigh that.
There are a host of reasons! I think the CD is a very bad format for classical music, because you get the same program over and over again, and the same performance; no interpretation. NTM hearing music live is totally different. (I really like watching the performers, myself; among other things, it gets me to notice things about the music that I wouldn't otherwise.) And of course going out to a concert is a social thing to a much greater extent than inviting people over to hear the new CD you just got. It's an occasion to that extent. I just don't see why I should treat it as a capital O suit-and-tie Occasion.
Well, if I wanted to pursue the ridiculous CD argument, I'd point out that for the price of a ticket, you could buy a different CD.
And as you say, the social aspect of it matters. Part of the social aspect is that the opera / symphony are seen as dress-up type occasions. You can object to this, and choose to dress according to your objections, but I assume you recognize that this is the norm, and that dressing down, rather than up, is the decision that refutes the norm (and is therefore, strictly speaking, a breach of etiquette).
you shouldn't have to dress up to be deemed acceptable
and
you shouldn't dress up at all for the occasion
Am I completely wrong about this, or is it not possible to go to a certain kind of restaurant where both those dressed up and those dressed casually, but not slobbishly, are both acceptable without casting aspersions on each other's characters? It's the universalising - this is an Occasion, dress up!; this is an occasion, dress down! - that grates. Going out can mean different things to different people, let them dress accordingly.
Except for bear-baiting, where only the most extraordinarily stylish clothing is acceptable, except for running shoes, which are advisable in case things get out of hand.
Actually I do only fight at weekends (and rarely enough then), mainly because I don't drink during the week all that much any more. On weekdays I am in work for 0620 (on the Tube) and home at around 1900 (also on the Tube) so I don't get much chance to crash cars or annoy my neighbours. I swear the shoes I'm thinking about are basketball shoes; they have a hell of a lot of bouncy padding on the feet which wouldn't make much sense for a wrestler.
I think the opera thing is what I would call town versus country. If I'm in London I would not get dressed up to go to a concert, because it's not that unusual a thing to do, because I would probably be going with music industry pals who don't wear suits and because I would not want to look like a provincial sales manager down from Coventry for the big occasion of the year. If I was back home with my parents, say, and we all went out to a concert or the opera I would probably wear a suit because it would be a much bigger deal for all the rest of the people there and thus it would be disrespectful to turn up in casual clothes.
Opera is different; in principle, one ought to wear a dinner jacket (what I believe the Europeans call "un smoking" and Yanks call a "tuxedo") but that is a reason to duck out of invitations to go to the opera rather than anything else - opera is for the most part shouty bollocks anyway. Since I paid five quid for tickets the last time I went to the opera and it was the ENO performance at the Proms, I did not get dressed up like a toff for fear of looking a twat.
crap. if the wrestling shoe link doesn't work... and you still have not lost interest in Shoe Trends of the Future... click on "adidas prajna high," at the page it does send you to.
I think that Ben's argument has at least one major flaw, in that dressing up is not, in practice, an added expense for anyone likely to go to the opera at all. The Miss Manners (literally, I'm remembering a column here) term for the appropriate level of dress is one's "Sunday Best" -- whatever clothes one does have that one would wear to something that one recognizes as an occasion. Someone living in grinding poverty may not have any such outfit, but almost anyone else, even living on a very low budget, has something that they think of as their dress-up clothes in which to do honor to an occasion. (Now, anyone who would object to an out-of-style dress, or an old suit, on an opera attendee who didn'[t have anything better would be an incredible asshole, but we're not talking about lame dress-up clothes, we're talking about jeans and fleece.) So I don't think there's anything to the argument that thinking of the opera as a dress-up occasion is economically exclusive. Class exclusive maybe, but not economically.
I am nearly breathless with pride that my comment on pleats over at Stay of Execution has contributed in a small way to this 177-comment thread.
In my defense (if necessary) I wish to point out that my pleated pants are all dress trousers, not khakis or (heaven forfend) jeans. They consist of two +/- $600 suits and perhaps four other pairs.
The women implicated in my post, since someone asked, were my ex-girlfriend SE, and my good friend AB. Both women, and in particular SE, are quite well-dressed themselves and could easily win the attention of any man they chose out of a fashion line-up. So I felt their opinions were trustworthy.
Meanwhile, I intend to capitalize on this whole issue. Anyone wishing to update his wardrobe to Sherry's specifications should visit my new web-based service www.flattenmypants.com. We'll take the pleats out of any pair of trousers for $15.99. Three-day turnaround service is available.
Weighing in on the opera talk: in my head, I'm with Ben: conceptions of elitism are a big problem for opera and concert-hall music (I hate the term "classical"). And I respect his motives for dressing down. In my heart, I side with B, but I must say that it's a completely emotional reaction for me, not grounded in logic. And the more I examine it, the more I realize that my lament is not for opera or symphony or ballet per se, but for a larger decline in cultural standards of dress. Ben's argument is a good one, especially because he's talking about a very real problem for a very specific set of institutions. I suspect (though I may be wrong) that B's reaction comes from the same place mine does, and is not exclusive to the music world. Again, I utterly sympathize with B here, since I tend to feel the same way.
Grudgingly, I'll admit that Ben probably has the high ground: I can lament an erosion of standards all the livelong day, but stamping my feet and demanding that we go back to an era in which people got dressed in tuxedos for dinner won't do any good. The votes have all been counted, and people have overwhelmingly chosen this more casual, fleece-and-jeans aesthetic. It is not mine, but I can see that I'm in the minority.
There can be no doubt that American society has become more 'dressed down' in the past nearly thirty years.
Around these parts I saw it happen when the Federal energy saving efforts in the 80's required businesses to be warmer in the summer and colder in the winter. My company loosened the dress code mostly, I suspect, because it cost the company nothing and it was seen as a benefit by the employees.
I wish I knew more about historical fashions. Why were uniforms so much more common in the 50's? I'm thinking about everything from how gas station attendants dressed to how movies showed, as you say, people wearing tuxedoes to dinner.
What changed? Why do people now choose comfort over style more and more? Could it be because the actual working class wage has fallen for the last 30 years so we now have less disposable income?
The Miss Manners (literally, I'm remembering a column here) term for the appropriate level of dress is one's "Sunday Best" -- whatever clothes one does have that one would wear to something that one recognizes as an occasion. Someone living in grinding poverty may not have any such outfit, but almost anyone else, even living on a very low budget, has something that they think of as their dress-up clothes in which to do honor to an occasion.
Miss Manners is dead wrong on this one (or rather, probably right for the provinces, which I suppose is a different thing). Such an outfit will, usually, make you look like the proverbial sales manager from Coventry down for the big occasion. If you are too poor to dress up but like the opera or theatre, then move down to the city, where it is more congenial to be poor anyway and where the social convention is not so rigid, mainly because there is a larger community of people like Ben.
A clearer way to make the point I was trying to make might be that I don't want going to the opera or symphony or whatnot to be an occasion you have to dress up for, because you only dress up for rare occasional outings, and I would prefer it if going to such music was more a part of everyday activity, as is going to just about any other sort of concert, because I like it and would like to see it be more popular (or at least viable).
Ben, the other problem (of which I'm sure you're aware) is the sources of funding for these institutions are mostly people who want them to be about fancy dress and society and all that. They're funded by the upper class, so the upper class naturally feels that the institutions belong to them. The elitism is coming, first and foremost, from the elitist patrons, of which there are many.
This may be changing with more and more corporate sponsorship, but I don't know if that's any better or worse.
There really are rules for this sort of thing. They are not anything like what Sherry's calling "rules", which are distillations of the fashions of the moment. They are more like what dsquared is suggesting, but you lot are speaking a babel of languages about this.
There is nothing wrong with defying the rules, especially if you do it stylishly. And Joe D is of course correct that in certain circles, defying the rules is the rule.
But Labs's instincts (he's a deep-dyed WASP, isn't he?) are essentially right: if you want to look like a member of the professional classes in America, there are the rules that e.g. ben should follow if he wants to buy three suits to last him through five years of conference papers, job talks, and other work occasions, or that any male person should follow if they want to look proper, but not like a <inelegant epithet SB hates>.
Suits. If you're only going to have a few suits whose function is to make you look like The Man, this is what you need.
Fabric. Charcoal gray or navy, plain or very subtle pattern (e.g. chalk stripe) all-weather wool.
Jacket. Two or three-button single-breasted, center vent in the back. Bogey and Cary Grant can wear double-breasted jackets. You are not Bogey or Cary Grant. If you are already an investment banker, or tenured professor, you can pretend if you like, otherwise you can't.
Trousers. And good lord, they are not "a pant". Pleats (forward, not reverse) and cuffs somewhat above 1 inch but below 2 inches in depth. If you are Fred Astaire, you can show some of your socks so that people will watch your feet. If you are Snoop Dogg, you can let your trousers puddle around your ankles. Note: you are not Fred Astaire or Snoop Dogg. Get your trousers to break crisply on the tops of your lace-up dress shoes.
Shirts. Wide variety of collars acceptable. dsquared is correct that button-down collars not fashionable with suits over the past five-ten years, but they're acceptable. In America, barrel cuffs are becoming on younger men, French cuffs are a way of asserting your flashiness. In England, barrel cuffs are totally naff. Want to avoid making choices? Get shirts of white or blue with spread collars.
Evening wear. dsquared is correct in assuming that the rules are clearer in England than here. In England, and in the America of fifty years ago, a tuxedo is not formal wear; a white tie, which is properly worn with tails, is. America today is not either of those countries, and unless you work in a State department job, you're not likely ever to be asked to wear real formal wear.
But for fancy dinners, or for the opera or symphony, you should wear...
Dinner jacket. Black, wool, single button, center vent. Shawl collar faced with silk or satin, width of which should be neither too much nor too little.
Trousers. Also black, wool, silk or satin stripe down the outside of leg. Break as above, no cuffs. Will have pleats, but won't matter because you will wear a cummerbund. Which will also, heaven help us, be black, like your tie. See above under, you are not Fred Astaire. You are also not Bertie Wooster, and if you were, Jeeves would make your life difficult.
Shirt. Pleated front. Again, per Jeeves, you cannot wear a soft-front shirt with a dinner jacket. Don't ask. Also do not ask about ruffles. You can have a wing collar or a fold-down collar. If you do not tie your own tie (you should tie your own tie, which should be black and silk) do not have a wing collar shirt, because then we can all see the hardware holding your clip-on tie together. Chicks do not dig this.
Shoes. You can in fact have one pair of shoes that will serve in both cases, though technically it's not right for formal wear. Get black lace-ups, what dsquared is calling brogues and what Americans often call Oxfords. Get them good and shined, and if you don't know what you're doing get someone else to do it. Your belt should match your shoes.
This will not make you look stylish. It will not make you look like you care about clothes. It will make you look like a normal, grown-up male person of the professional classes. I have omitted mention of ties because they do in fact rather vary with the season. But you should not wear a school tie unless you went to that school. And Americans, generally speaking, did not. And English people generally regard school ties as naff these days.
I wear jeans to my white-collar pharma industry job every day (except for the ten or so days out of the year when clients would be on my floor) and it's easily the single most enjoyable thing about my job.
I don't want going to the opera or symphony or whatnot to be an occasion you have to dress up for, because you only dress up for rare occasional outings, and I would prefer it if going to such music was more a part of everyday activity,
My argument with you here is that I think it is pleasant and charming (and not particularly oppressive) for dress-up occasions to be a frequent, rather than an incredibly infrequent thing. Why can't a special occasion worthy of pretty clothes occur every week or so, rather than once a year? Concerts can be both everyday (or, at least, a several times a month thing) and an occasion. Think again about the term 'Sunday best' -- most people used to manage to dress up nicely once a week.
Yes, you will. What are you wearing, a vest / waistcoat?
The last time I changed from what I had been wearing to go to a symphony, I think just put on a decent shirt and sport coat. (Actually, this was also the last time I went to a symphony at all, IIRC.)
I usually look at what other people are wearing, and I think I someone in a cummerbund would stand out, especially someone my age.
Okay, I was describing evening dress. If you think evening dress is not appropriate for your local symphony, and maybe it isn't, then of course you shouldn't wear a cummerbund with any other kind of outfit.
Sadly, Ben is right on this. A cummerbund would stand out at the symphony in New York as well. A smart looking shirt and sport coat, and possibly a tie, seems right based on my experience.
I also think that it's preferable to wear clothes that are well-tailored and look fantastic than to wear ill-fitting but more-formal attire, even if one is a step below most other people at the event. A terrific shirt with a sharp jacket is much better than a suit that is one size too big, or a suit with a tie that doesn't match, or the like.
I also think that it's preferable to wear clothes that are well-tailored and look fantastic
This is a seperate issue: that what consitutes dress-up clothes changes over time with fashion. If what you would wear when you wanted to look dressed up and fantastic for a special occasion isn't a suit, go for it (that is, the results might be pleasing or displeasing, but it wouldn't annoy me in the same way that jeans and fleece do).
I bought a bunch of clothes last night based on this post. Banana Republic and J. Crew are having sales. I really should have got more toys for the kids.
Ben, WMYBSALB? (I saw that, and contemplated an apologetic follow-up post, and thought, Nah, no one's going to give me a hard time about it. I was so wrong.)
Ok, layers are in. Yes. So I go to check said site. It seems to me that the guy on the front page is anxiously awaiting his hot date with a fucking polar bear.
Some green-colored thing as the bottom layer, then a thick lumberjack shirt and then some dorky sweater that's clearly trying to escape the coming catastrophe, and then a vest that really looks like those vests for small dogs that you get at the pet store. Also, apparently, he just had an accident that involved urination and a light socket.
So I'm like guessing here that really really sweaty guys make polar bears hott.
ash
['Snow, tasty fish guts, and the smell of blubber!']
I have worked in several opera houses, and I have to agree with Wolfson - there is no real need to get dressed up to hear music that you like (except that I often wear tights to the opera, or cowboy hats, or pirate outfits, but only on stage and only when I'm getting paid.)
And very few people actually wear tuxedos to the opera, even to the Met, except on opening night. In fact, regional houses may have a higher proportion of tuxedo-wearing men than big-city houses like Lincoln Center, where a man wearing a tuxedo would probably feel a little bit out of place.
When I was little, my mother used to take me to the opera in San Francisco (usually standing room tickets). Half the fun was standing on the balcony overlooking the lobby checking out the fabulously gorgeous frivolous lovely clothes--it was part of the show. I miss that.
are mock turtlenecks the same as dickies?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 9:47 AM
The main problem with pleats is twofold. First, they often make people look fatter than they are; second, they often billow out when you sit down, making you look bloated.
If your suits are well enough made that your pleats do neither, then no one cares.
However, unpleated pants do, in general, create a smoother line, which is always good.
I agree that pockets on dress shirts are dumb. If you put anything in them, they sag and look bad. So what's the fucking point?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 9:49 AM
"Button down shirts shouldn't have pockets on them."
that is lunacy. The standard model is one pocket. You can go without, but it's a deviance, not the other way around.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 9:49 AM
I suppose that implies you should always wear a belt?
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 9:50 AM
you don't put anything in the pockets. But they are there if you need them. such as to put a wad of cash in, after winning the big poker hand.
Is it not true, as a rule, that women who set forth fashion rules for men know much less than they think they know about the subject?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 9:52 AM
The no buttons is too too weird.
In my opinion pleated pants are okay only if you are at least two sizes leaner than average. Only a completely lean guy (which I wish I was but am not) can look good in pleats. I am talking looks only. What happens to be stylish at the moment I have no idea about.
Belt/shoes is a good thing, unless the shoes are white tennies. White belt never good. White non-athletic shoes never good.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 9:53 AM
The thing is that pleated pants are unflattering on both the overly skinny (they just look puffy) and the even slightly overweight (they look apologetic). For the few poised at the golden mean, sure, they can look fine.
I'm not certain what the problem is with pocketed dress shirts -- I think she's picturing the classic engineer-shirt: thin white fabric so you can really see the sleeveless undershirt underneath, and the pocket shows up starkly against the translucency of the fabric. But pockets, on a nice heavy dress shirt, are certainly fine.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 9:54 AM
I meant no pockets not no buttons.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 9:54 AM
4: one of my few fashion rules is: "never trust a man who doesn't wear a belt."
Posted by mike d | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 9:56 AM
The no buttons is too too weird.
You mean on the collar? It's considered more formal that way. I actually prefer it (though collar stays become a must).
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 9:56 AM
Ah. Never mind then.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 9:57 AM
I will hereby set forth my three categories of women, based on their adherence to my sense of fashion, and then issue my advice accordingly:
(1) women who should wear less clothes.
(2) women who should wear more clothes.
(3) women who wear the right amount of clothes.
All those in category (1): wear less clothes. All those in category (2): wear more clothes. All those in category (3): let me buy you a drink.
Since I am a man, attracted to females, I am perfectly qualified to tell you how to dress. No need to thank me.
Sincerely,
Text
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:01 AM
I see Labs and I are of one mind in this.
Also, I see that Labs is rich. Hickey Freeman costs.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:04 AM
4: one of my few fashion rules is: "never trust a man who doesn't wear a belt."
What about a man who wears suspenders? Would you trust him?
What about a man who wears a belt but no pants? Would you trust him?
I'm guessing Sansabelt slacks are right out.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:07 AM
Not as rich as you think-- I know someone who lives near the factory. Gets me things when the sales come. The great thing about unhemmed pants: they'll actually fit!
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:08 AM
What about a man who wears a belt but no pants? Would you trust him?
Please say yes. I'm so tired of all the suspicious looks.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:10 AM
Pleats are unflattering on women ('I know, Smithers, we'll make the fabric gather and fold just where women start to curve and hold excess weight!'). They're not quite as bad on men, but unfortunately that only means there's a slightly wider range of body type on which it looks good.
I think you're okay if the suit is expensive (alas, I don't know if '$1500 worth of suits' is one or two really nice pieces or ten crappy ones), because it will still drape well. But yeah, if you're buying a suit now, and not freakishly tall like Labs, get non-pleated things.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:11 AM
It's one of those historical factoids that may actually be true that pleats on men's suits only go out of fashion in wartime.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:12 AM
Haven't we been through all this before?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:13 AM
I have two questions:
Why is the man in the Sansabelt ad wearing a belt?
And why does he look like he's courting the older gemtleman, whose hands are clasped decorously, perhaps to obstruct the young stud's view of his genitals? Weird.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:17 AM
It is OK to wear pleated pants. I would hold off buying new ones.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:20 AM
I think it's the other man—the man posed so as to obscure any view of his potential belt, which may or may not be there—who's wearing the sansabelt duds.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:21 AM
The real question, of course, is: Are Varieties of Practical Reasoning T-shirts acceptable? We will find out at the APA.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:22 AM
Yes, but the man is sitting down. Implying that the sansabelt pants do not, in fact, effectively prevent de-pantsing as we have been led to believe.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:23 AM
Come back in 5 years and see Sherri make the same confident statements about diametrically opposed fashion choices.
In the meantime, read Simmel on Fashion (1904). "Fashion is a form of imitation an so of social equalization, but, paradoxically, in changing incessantly it differentiates one time from another and one social stratum from another. It unites those of a social class and segregates them from others ... [It] concerns externals and superficialities where irrationality does no harm. It signals the lack of personal freedom; hence it characterizes the female and the middle class, whose increased social freedom is matched by intense individual subjugation."
Posted by Kieran | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:23 AM
text,
I'm really starting to like you. Here were my dating rules:
1. I would not date a smoker.
2. I would not continue dating someone who literally believed that mental illness did not exist and people were instead possesed by demons.
3. I would not date someone who frequently said "Write that down in your diarrhea Har Har."
4. I would not kiss a girl right after she vomitted.
5. I would not date my sister.
6. I would have dated some of my cousins. Man they were hot.
Yeah, I know, I was incredibly picky. It is a wonder I ever got married.
As for her fashion sense I don't think I ever cared too much either way.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:24 AM
If I met a woman who said "Write that down in your diarrhea Har Har," even every so often, I think I'd be intrigued. And I'd like to say I wouldn't date smokers, but there's something kind of hot about smoking, unfortunately. Maybe it wears off.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:32 AM
#25: Simmel is obviously sexist.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:34 AM
My principal dating rule (back in the day) was, I would not go out with anyone who refused to go out with me. This seemed to narrow the field quite substantially.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:35 AM
Shirts without pockets are annoying if you wear glasses. It is much better to put glasses in your shirt pockets while you read than in your jacket or pants pocket. From the online catalogs, it looks like Banana Republic has gone pocketless while J.Crew is holding the line. "Banana Republic" is a stupid name anyway.
A good way to dress relatively stylish for men is to buy everything from the same relatively stylish store. I am thinking J.Crew. It isn't cheap though. Which is probably the point.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:46 AM
Shirts without pockets are annoying if you wear glasses.
I hang 'em from the collar.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:48 AM
#25: what is meant by "intense individual subjugation?"
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:50 AM
J Crew isn't cheap, but their clothes are cheaply made.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:50 AM
A good way to dress relatively stylish for men is to buy everything from the same relatively stylish store. I am thinking J.Crew. It isn't cheap though. Which is probably the point.
A (straight) male friend of mine started buying all his clothes from Banana Republic, he suddenly, overnight, started looking ten times better, got about 500% more successful with women. And he did it without much hassle or vanity since he was keeping it simple, with the one store--credibly maintaining his straight male lack of interest in fashion. It worked really well for him.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:57 AM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:59 AM
FL is so big his comments won't fit in one post.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:01 AM
I suppose his post won't fit anywhere, either.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:03 AM
Buying everything at Banana Republic (or similar): totally ok!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:04 AM
Buying everything at Banana Republic (or similar): totally ok!
What if you make an effort to choose clothes that look good on you or even go so far as to exercise a sense of style in one's purchases?
Posted by Tarrou | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:08 AM
Damn. Sorry, Joe O-- if I'd seen your funny comment, I'd've left my duplicate post.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:08 AM
These rules are of more than one order. Are there people, for example, who wear pleated pants with tennis shoes, white sox, and Hard Rock t-shirts?
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:17 AM
Depends on the color and material of the pants.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:19 AM
Here's what the WSJ said recently about pleats vs. flat:
Also, Tripp may be fashion challenged:
I can't believe someone beat me to a quip about mock turtles & dickies. I used to love mock turtlenecks. I think they'll make a comeback.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:24 AM
Call me intensely individually subjugated, but every single one of those rules is completely correct. Even the rare body type that can pull off pleated pants is still guilty by association with the pleated atrocities downtown each and every day.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:39 AM
38: Aren't you backpedaling here, Ogged? Or are you being facetious?
(I should say that men who exercise a sense of style are bad people; knowing what looks good is ok, caring enough to do something about it: bad.)
I shop (mainly) from BR because I know I generally look good when I wear their clothes. What is patronizing a particular brand, if not a style?
Also: 'Smasher. Word.
Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:39 AM
I'm not sure why that would be a backpedal: not too much effort, wind up looking basically ok, but unremarkable. That's what I'm aiming for.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:44 AM
You look pretty remarkable.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:45 AM
Let's leave the butt-sex come-ons for a different, less serious, thread.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:48 AM
I meant remarkably bad, but whatevs.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:49 AM
Ah. Well, I guess I don't agree that wanting to be remarkable is such a bad thing.
Since the other thread has evolved into a discussion of art and aesthetics, I guess this is the default place to plead the case of those of us who want to look good and not feel bad about it.
On the other hand, maybe the argument has already been made: it's possible to want to look one's best without being a fuckwit about it, blah blah double standard fishcakes.
Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:50 AM
Don't make me go back and put a comma between "pretty " and "remarkable," Ben.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:52 AM
I would submit that ogged, with his byzantine system of rules and amendments that constitutes his view of what to wear on a day-to-day basis, is a form of fashion-consciousness even more refined than the style mavens whose wits he declares to be of the fuck. Do wear this, don't wear that, this sends this image, that will make people think I'm X...what is this but a sophisticated fashion sense of his own devising? To put on the "unremarkable" look requires no small bit of effort, in spite of ogged's protests to the contrary; judgment calls abound.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:53 AM
I would never use "remarkable" as a substantive. That would truly be to have no style.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:53 AM
I would never use "remarkable" as a substantive. That would truly be to have no style.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:54 AM
Might you use it as a pet name, though?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:55 AM
Goddammit, ogged.
Joe is right on. Ogged needs to take a chill pill.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:55 AM
"is a form" should be "has a form"
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:56 AM
cw,
I'm sure that I am fashionably challenged, but I'm still not 'getting' that fashion advice.
I've got a little tummy - 36 waist with a 38 roll above it, but I'm not what my son calls "All gut no butt." Pleats make me look fatter. Even I can see that. So why does the portly gentleman have to go with pleats? Is the idea that he wears his pants below the gut and the pleats somehow disguise that? Or maybe he wears Grampa pants up above his navel and the pleat expand to cover the gut?
I really don't know.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:56 AM
It's been over a year since I wore my suit, and I don't remember if the pants are pleated or not, but in the realm of ordinary pants pleated is much more comfortable for me than flat-front, so despite the fact that I've come to acknowledge that flat-front looks better, I'm going with comfort.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:57 AM
My dear Joe, you're attacking a position I haven't taken. Even in the post, I concede that having a sense of style is fine, and in the comments I've said that thinking about fashion is fine. It's the act of looking stylish that I (and not only I) find objectionable. Anyway, relax, you weren't that stylish.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:57 AM
Ogged is like that character from Les Miserables who prides himself on understanding all the argots of the underclasses, and on speaking only the most proper sense, thus practicing the software dictum "be strict in what you send out, but lenient in what you receive" avant la lettre.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:00 PM
No sneakers or hiking boots unless you're running or hiking. You need leather shoes not only for dress up but also for wearing casually around town.
This is not a world in which I want to live. We've developed comfortable shoes. I can understand pretending that such things don't exist when someone is paying me to do so -- but now I'm supposed to do it on my off hours, too? Nuts to that.
Also, ogged's ridiculous position is completely correct.
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:03 PM
All right, fair enough, but let's make a distinction between "stylish" and "dresses to look good". "Stylish" is loaded, since it suggests a rudderless, any-way-the-wind-blows herd person. But still, such a person is a person made of straw. Most everyone I know pays attention to how they look and how they dress; different circles have different unspoken fashion codes, and yours may be different than mine, but that doesn't make it superior or all-emcompassing.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:03 PM
My dear Joe … relax, you weren't that stylish.
Golda!
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:04 PM
There are comfortable leather shoes. I'm wearing some right now. In fact the least comfortable shoes I own are leather-free.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:04 PM
I can't believe someone beat me to a quip about mock turtles & dickies.
Actually, apo beat you to it a long time ago.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:06 PM
Golda!
Yup..
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:08 PM
Also.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:11 PM
It's a classic.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:12 PM
There are comfortable leather shoes. I'm wearing some right now.
I had not pictured you as a Birkenstocks-wearer.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:17 PM
Birkenstocks aren't shoes, they're sandals.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:18 PM
au contraire -- I am not seeing any toe.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:21 PM
Clogs don't count as real shoes.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:23 PM
Birkenstock might manufacture shoes, but "Birkenstocks" are sandals.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:24 PM
#60: I believe the word you want is not "stylish," but "trendy."
#62: The argument in favor of Nikes for all occasions is ludicrous. First, they are expensive; second, they are developed for athletics. Normal everyday leather shoes that are more than comfortable enough for normal everyday events are, if anything, often less expensive than Nikes (and by "Nikes" I mean "any brand of what used to be called tennis shoes). And you don't look like some dork who doesn't know the difference between a basketball court and a place of business.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:29 PM
Whatever. In my understanding of the language, "sandals" and "clogs" are both subsets of "shoes". ("Boots", too!) When I hear "Birkenstocks" I think "sandals or clogs". (Non-Birkenstock brands manufacture sandals and clogs which I think of as "Birkenstocks", including e.g. Doc Marten and Teva.) I find them comfortable.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:30 PM
When I hear "Birkenstocks" I think "sandals or clogs"
s/b When I hear "Birkenstocks" I think of a particular style of "sandals or clogs"
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:32 PM
What about something like this?
Historically, of course, finding people who don't know how to dress for places of business and are likely to spend time on basketball courts "dorky" has been a means of repression and is anti-feminist.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:32 PM
Those are nice shoes, Ben.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:35 PM
#78: Those shoes are fine, but not with a suit.
And "dorky" is not anti-feminist, I'm sorry. You could win this one by interrogating the norm of "professional" dress, perhaps, but not by criticizing "dorky." Indeed, I am prouder and prouder of "dorky," as it also insulates me from the charge that the business v. basketball court opposition is racist.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:38 PM
Oh with a suit, of course not. But we weren't talking about suits. (Were we?)
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:39 PM
Well, I had mentioned "place of business," but you're right, that can cover a wide range of workplaces, at many of which Sketchers are perfectly acceptable. I was probably still imagining the suit pants pleats / no pleats thing.
The Sketchers are fine.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:46 PM
No "t".
I have some but not the pictured shoe. Simply can't be bothered to find the correct style, plus I don't want to reveal too much about myself.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:48 PM
I'm curious about what your evidence is for J. Crew clothes being cheaply made relative to other retailers' in the same general price range. My strong suspicion, given the nature of the textile industry, is that the perceived variation in quality is an illusion created by narcissism of minor difference.
The clothes I bought there have been durable.
Posted by Jonathan | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 12:55 PM
My evidence is that the clothes I've bought there have been poorly made relative to equally-priced clothes I've bought elsewhere. Thin fabrics that wrinkle easily, buttons that come loose and fall off, unlined or only partly lined jackets and pants, etc. I don't buy men's clothes, though, so for all I know they're "good" relative to other men's clothing. But for women's clothing, in contrast, Ann Taylor is a much better buy.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 1:12 PM
You could tell about the lining and perhaps the thin wrinkly fabric before you left the store with them, no?
All throughout my adult life have I heard womenfolk sing the praises of Ann Taylor.
Posted by Jonathan | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 1:30 PM
Oh, but the dreaded Ann Taylor never fits right. The shoulders are much too big. French clothes fit me very well. I have a (from the thrift store) Christian Dior knit top which is divine.
Thank you for pointing out that white socks should be avoided! David Letterman wears the most superbly tailored suits, but he is always wearing cream-colored socks; I don't get it.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 1:34 PM
Oh, but the dreaded Ann Taylor never fits right. The shoulders are much too big.
That would be why the linebacker-like among us love the place.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 1:36 PM
Cream != white, no?
I only own black socks, to avoid such confusions.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 1:38 PM
I really hate Ann Taylor. Not only do the clothes not fit right (too loose in certain places and too tight in others, always!), but it doesn't, at least the times I've been there, mesh at all with my personal sense of style.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 1:38 PM
#86: Yes, that's why I don't buy J. Crew.
#87 and 88: Huh. I'm not one with huge shoulders, especially not relative to my chest, but I haven't had a problem. I do find that their clothes, like a lot of other clothes, sometimes need slight alterations, mostly in the realm of hemming. But that's just the way it is.
#89: Please say you are kidding, and do not wear black socks with jeans and Skechers. (Sans T, damnit.)
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 1:41 PM
Do you ever do anything that requires wearing athletic shoes and shorts?
Posted by Jonathan | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 1:42 PM
Also, I have a pair of brown leather Skechers; and of I course I wear dark socks with them with jeans and a t-shirt. White socks look fucking horrible in that kind of get-up.
Posted by Jonathan | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 1:44 PM
Oh, but the dreaded Ann Taylor never fits right. The shoulders are much too big.
I can't really tell from this photo, so I'll have to take your word for it.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 1:46 PM
Please say you are kidding, and do not wear black socks with jeans
I split the difference and go argyle.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 1:49 PM
#92: Me, personally? No. I very seldom do anything that requires tennis shoes, full stop. In fact, I think the only tennies I own are 10-year old Chuck Taylors. I also pretty much don't wear shorts.
#95: Exactly. Or gray. Or fine, black athletic socks. But please god not black dress socks.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 1:52 PM
Do you ever do anything that requires wearing athletic shoes and shorts?
Whever I get the urge to exercise, I lie down until the urge goes away.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 1:53 PM
#95: Exactly. Or gray. Or fine, black athletic socks. But please god not black dress socks.
Athletic socks. Sheesh.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 1:56 PM
I was talking to the young aesthete, there. I don't wear black dress socks, as that would be ridiculous. It's the sheen of the fabric that you object to, not the color?
Posted by Jonathan | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 1:58 PM
I dunno, probably sheen + texture + thickness. I don't approve of black socks with jeans, full stop, but at least if they're crew socks, or whatever the fuck Ben wants to call them, it's less ridiculous than wearing black dress socks with jeans would be.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:00 PM
91: I have very small shoulders and am petite, but I have a large chest (34DD). I also have a slightly-largish rib cage. Basically, I need a tailor.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:01 PM
whatever the fuck Ben wants to call them
This little bit of opprobrium was based on a misunderstanding. "Crew socks", sheesh.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:02 PM
bphd, how is it that you were able to eat dinner with me without crying out in pain?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:04 PM
I have very small shoulders and am petite, but I have a large chest (34DD).
For a good time, call 1-900...
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:06 PM
That wasn't pain she wasn't crying out in.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:07 PM
But you don't approve of white socks with jeans, do you? I mean, you can wear those with tennis shoes and jeans if you're going to the library; but only if you're not looking at books stored above Z. Analytic bibliographies do not judge.
Posted by Jonathan | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:10 PM
#101: Then the problem isn't the shoulders: it's the chest. (In Ann Taylor's clothing, that is.) I'm still surprised, though, given that you sound like you're basically the same size I am.
#103: Four possibilities. One is that I am way less bitchy than I pretend to be online. Two is that online I argue for the sake of clarity, while in real life I am much more willing to accept messiness. Three is that good looks and wit are more important than clothes. Four is that I didn't notice your socks.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:13 PM
I am pondering the aesthetics of capitalizing pseudonyms. For example: Bostoniangirl (87) or bostoniangirl (101)?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:17 PM
108 -- I have taken to disambiguating squashed-together pseudonyms by inserting spaces and capitals as appropriate: E.g. Bostonian Girl; Bitch, Ph. D.; Slow Learner; -gg-d.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:25 PM
107: It's both. The chest doesn't fit right and the shoulders on the jackets drown me. I can't move my arms up at all without having everything scunch weirdly.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:25 PM
110 was me.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:26 PM
Jeremy, you might want to try this construction.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:28 PM
If any of you chaps come over to Europe, the best thing to wear is a loudly patterned Hawaiian shirt, bermuda shorts and a tartan ("plaid", I believe) sports jacket. And basketball boots. Accessorise with a camera hanging round the neck and a baseball hat.
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:33 PM
"basketball boots"?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:34 PM
The Tourist class in nethack starts off wearing a Hawaiian shirt.
Shopkeepers charge them more as long as it's visible.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:36 PM
I don't know, those fucking great high-ankled trainers you lot wear, look like small boats and cost $500.
My fashion advice is this. Wear a suit in the city. Buy new suits every year and they won't be too out of fashion. If you don't wear out your suits every year then you don't wear suits often enough. At the weekend, dress like a fucking brickie and keep an old blazer or some tweeds in the wardrobe for when your missus whines at you because you're going somewhere smart. Wear Doc Martens at the weekend because they are smart and practical in a fight. In the week, bankers wear loafers but brokers wear brogues and you would be best advised to wear brogues. thank you and goodnight.
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:38 PM
oh yeah and pockets are coming back on shirts, but button down collars have been out for at least five years.
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:39 PM
The author of this post wears a different $1500 suit each day he teaches (during the week). Analytic philosophers--not just male but rich.
But can Ben ascend a Tourist? I don't think so.
Posted by Jonathan | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:45 PM
I can't ascend at all.
I'm told that you can fly to Hong Kong or Mumbai or Singapore and get a very nice handmade suit, ties and set of shirts on the cheap, such that the total cost inclusive of airfare and accomodations is less than getting the equivalent made in the US or western Europe.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:49 PM
"brickie"?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:51 PM
Bricklayer, perhaps?
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:52 PM
Also, dsquared, can you tell me why everyone in the UK with an internet connection is searching for jonathan+goodwin+naked over the past few days? It seems to have something to do with magic.
Posted by Jonathan | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:54 PM
I don't know what it costs, but there are also companies which will measure you here (in major metropoloitan areas) and then send your measurements off to Hong Kong or Thailand to construct the garment. Most of them will pay for local alterations to the finished product. These services seemed aimed mainly at men. Google Hong Kong tailor.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:56 PM
Wear Doc Martens at the weekend because they are smart and practical in a fight.
Apparently these effete Europeans only fight on the weekends. Are there no rear-end collisions during the week? No annoying neighbours? Is it a lack of lager?
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:56 PM
I'm beginning to suspect that dsquared's advice in 113 may not have been earnest. Hard to tell when he keeps lapsing into that strange, unidentified language.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:58 PM
effete Europeans only fight on the weekends
Yet another victim of the metastasized welfare state, I suppose.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 2:59 PM
bphd, I'm not arguing that there isn't a norm about not wearing tennis shoes, just that it shouldn't be needlessly expanded into casual wear. And sure, there are comfortable leather shoes, but nylon is innately both cheaper and more comfortable than leather. For a given amount of money, the tennis shoe ought to be more comfortable, and probably better made. They frequently aren't, but that's a whole other thing.
Anyway, I got a pair of non-athletic new balances for $30 a few years ago, and they're still fine -- and about a million times more comfortable than the $100 leather casual shoes I bought last weekend.
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 3:32 PM
Wear what you like, but if you wear jeans and a sweatshirt to the opera, I am going to mock you.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 3:54 PM
I'm told that you can fly to Hong Kong or Mumbai or Singapore and get a very nice handmade suit, ties and set of shirts on the cheap, such that the total cost inclusive of airfare and accomodations is less than getting the equivalent made in the US or western Europe.
You've been told that by the man who is selling them. I've tried something similar and they aren't all that good.
I've been to the opera in jeans and a sweatshirt, albeit that it was the Proms rather than a proper opera.
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 4:04 PM
I hate that. I wrestle myself into the little black dress and pearls, wear the damn spike heels, and then half the people at the Met are in Dockers. If I have to dress up for the opera, everyone should.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 4:21 PM
130: I think the lesson is that you don't have to dress up for the opera.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 4:23 PM
hey dsquared - those "basketball boots" are wrestling shoes.
and they are great. i mean, wrestling shoes. what more is there to be said.
(but, not to be worn over-earnestly)
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 4:27 PM
But I accept the annoyance of having to dress up because I expect to be able to be surrounded by a bevy of other opera-goers looking glamorous. And then they cheat me out of it. Feh.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 4:34 PM
Feh.
Yes, feh. Also "fie" and "faugh".
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 4:36 PM
Throw in a "fo" and a "fum" and let's see how tough dsquared really is in those Doc Martens.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 5:25 PM
George WS Trow wants to be surrounded by others wearing hats so he can wear a hat without feeling self-conscious. It would be a market failure in hats if it wasn't just him.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 5:37 PM
Exactly. Because you understand the concept of appropriate dress for different occasions, and other people idiots don't.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 5:39 PM
#137 to #133.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 5:40 PM
Wear what you like, but if you wear jeans and a sweatshirt to the opera, I am going to mock you.
Greg Sandow, however, will salute you! I deliberately don't dress up to go to symphonies and the rest, as I think doing so exclusionary, creating the false impression that such music is the preserve of the wealthy and well-educated, that it's above the heads of most folk and can't be enjoyed without extensive qualification &c, and other reasons besides.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 6:59 PM
That's admirable, Ben, but it's also a tough call insofar as being dressed down is more likely to be read as disrespect than an egalitarian statement. Probably the polite way to go about it is to dress down, but also carry a sign explaining why.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:11 PM
Oh pshaw. If a person can afford opera tickets, they can certainly afford at least a jacket or a nice dress. Give me a break.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:14 PM
Oh pshaw. If a person can afford opera tickets, they can certainly afford at least a jacket or a nice dress. Give me a break.
That's horrifying.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:17 PM
I think I've lost the battle to make dressing down - or rather, not dressing up - respectable in all but the most formal situations. Unfortunately this has left me with a lot of worn out clothing and little sense of style to help me when I go shopping.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:18 PM
Seriously, there's lots of talk and concern about how the classical music biz, especially large symphonies and opera houses, are experiencing declining sales. Making the whole concert-going experience standoffish and formal (and elitist, which 141 is in spades—ever hear of rush tickets? or discounts for students? or maybe opera tickets should actually be lower-priced in general, and command the prices they do in part because of the general expectation that it's more about the society than the music anyway) doesn't help, and I can't imagine why you'd think things ought to be done that way other than "that's the way things are done".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:21 PM
141 makes me think I should rejoin the battle. If I ever go to the opera.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:23 PM
Because I reject the argument that dressing appropriately for the occasion is "elitist."
For the record (and b/c Ben, of all people, is misrepresenting my argument in chat), I am not saying that if someone can't afford a decent suit, they have no right to go to the opera. Go, and enjoy, and be blessed. What I am saying is that people who CAN afford to dress appropriately, and who in fact have more or less appropriate clothing hanging in their damn closets, but who choose not to out of some condescending wish not to appear "elitist" (or more likely, b/c they are just too lazy to change clothes), annoy the crap out of me.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:28 PM
but who choose not to out of some condescending wish not to appear "elitist" (or more likely, b/c they are just too lazy to change clothes), annoy the crap out of me.
Now who's misrepresenting whom? (Hint: you, me.)
(And how do you tell at whom to be annoyed?)
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:29 PM
But you do realize that there are people who'd think, I like the music/performance but look at how everyone dresses and acts, that's not the place for me.
Also, 141 and 146 are clearly not the same argument.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:33 PM
I wasn't representing that as your argument specifically.
What damn difference does it make at whom I am annoyed? I don't walk up to people and scold them. I'm just saying, if you have season tickets to the opera and wear jeans and fleece--and I have seen people do this, back when I was a season ticket subscriber myself--I reserve the right to consider you an asshole.
I mean, honestly Ben, the primary problem with symphony and opera is the price of tickets. But if you want to try going the populist route, then wear jeans, sell popcorn and coke in the lobby, and let people talk during the performance.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:34 PM
#148: Yes, and now I've presented a third argument. I think there are many reasons not to wear jeans at the opera, just as there are many reasons not to wear jeans to someone's wedding (unless, of course, they are getting married outside and are that kind of people, in which case it is perfectly appropriate). And I honestly think that the reasons people put forth for doing so are mostly rationalizations, and the real reason is "I can't be bothered," which I think is very ridiculous, as going to the opera is something that one generally arranges in advance. You don't just wander in off the street.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:37 PM
You seem to be annoyed at a pretty wide swath of folks these days, B.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:40 PM
I wasn't representing that as your argument specifically.
Ah. For some reason I thought that we were having a conversation, and you might have been relevantly addressing points raised earlier. I think that might have been prompted by the fact that you mentioned me by name, and I had earlier said something about the same topic that someone who was going to tendentiously misrepresent me might have construed as being the position you put forward to denounce? I'm not sure. I apologize for my haste.
I mean, honestly Ben, the primary problem with symphony and opera is the price of tickets. But if you want to try going the populist route, then wear jeans, sell popcorn and coke in the lobby, and let people talk during the performance.
Hey, I'd be all for all of those. (That is, I wouldn't like it if people flagrantly talked during a performance, but I'm naïve enough to think people wouldn't be that disruptive. I get really pissed off at the people who turn around to stare hatefully at anyone unlucky enough to shift a millimeter and cause his or her chair to squeak. They are true assholes.) Surely you see, though, that a de facto requirement of attire of such-and-such quality is an additional expense on top of the ticket price? And it's not just the cost, it's the way it makes the whole production into more than it should be—a, well, a production; a great to-do—when you're just going to hear some music. It is exclusionary.
I'm just saying, if you have season tickets to the opera and wear jeans and fleece--and I have seen people do this, back when I was a season ticket subscriber myself--I reserve the right to consider you an asshole.
But why? If I see a guy in a suit at a rock show, I don't think he's an asshole, or look down on him for dressing inappropriately to the scene.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:42 PM
Indeed. Sue me, I just think that there is value in having a sense of occasion.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:43 PM
I think there are many reasons not to wear jeans at the opera, just as there are many reasons not to wear jeans to someone's wedding (unless, of course, they are getting married outside and are that kind of people, in which case it is perfectly appropriate).
This particular example is giving me deja vu. Has this all gone down before?
And I honestly think that the reasons people put forth for doing so are mostly rationalizations, and the real reason is "I can't be bothered," which I think is very ridiculous, as going to the opera is something that one generally arranges in advance.
I think that's ridiculous.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:45 PM
I always keep some formal attire handy, just in case I want to pop some Bartok in the stereo.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:46 PM
value in having a sense of occasion.
But you haven't established that going to a symphony (I don't really attend operas, so I feel on firmer ground here) is or ought to be an occasion.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:47 PM
And it's the occasion-ness of it that I object to.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:47 PM
I want to pop some Bartok in the stereo.
And that's not a euphemism.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:48 PM
A different sort of populist solution is to provide appropriate attire, for the evening, to opera/symphony goers who can't afford it.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:49 PM
Like restaurants that keep a supply of ill-fitting jackets on hand for the gentleman who forgets his.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:50 PM
If you saw a guy in a suit at a rock show, you probably would think "what an asshole," but you would be thinking of the secondary definition of "asshole," which is, "a foolish individual, a putz," as opposed to the primary definition, "a person who is unkind or inconsiderate to others."
The secondary definition may be the older of the two, and you would not be remiss in using it in your thoughts.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:50 PM
Or bowling shoes.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:51 PM
Who were the fool women who allowed Turboglacier to buy pleated pants? They've been unacceptable since 1996.
(Ok, off to read the thread.)
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:52 PM
For some reason I thought that we were having a conversation, and you might have been relevantly addressing points raised earlier. I think that might have been prompted by the fact that you mentioned me by name, and I had earlier said something about the same topic that someone who was going to tendentiously misrepresent me might have construed as being the position you put forward to denounce?
We were having a conversation, and other people joined in. I was addressing the group. I referred to you parenthetically in that particular comment, and in the third, not second perrson. And at the very least I'd hope that if I misrepresented an argument I would be interpreted as doing so inadvertently, rather than deliberately.
Moving on. Obviously, part of the problem is the disagreement about what the occasion--specifically, in this instance, the opera but extendable to the symphony, which is less formal--actually is. And of course it's not at all a new argument. So, for instance, one of the "proofs" of Evelina's innate superiority to her cousins is that she appreciates the *music* at the opera, rather than the occasion and the spectacle. But that is, itself, a form of snobbery, as the class distinction in that novel makes clear. On the other hand, we have Jane Austen, in which the aristocrats are usually the ones who care about occasion but lack "real taste." What's happening is that one is simply presenting an alternative form of snobbery.
It's particularly ironic, given that the primary aesthete's argument against opera back in the day was that it cared too much about "spectacle," rather than pure music--an argument one can still get into today over issues like casting, blocking, movement, supertitles, and so on. I freely admit that one reason I like the opera is because of the spectacle and, yes, the sense of occasion. Otherwise, why not save the price of the ticket and listen to it on a CD at home? Yes, the musical experience is somewhat less satisfying, but surely the comfort, convenience, and anti-elitism more than outweigh that.
I know I'm being a snot. It's a pet peeve of mine. I'm sorry.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:53 PM
I was actually in a group of people turned away from a casino for lack of appropriate shoes (which was annoying, but fine with me overall, because I had no desire to gamble).
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:53 PM
If it's the sense of occasion you object to, then obviously what's going on is that we simply have different goals for the thing; that is, the clothing thing isn't really the point of the argument.
And I'm not arguing that people should be turned away at the door for not wearing a jacket. I'm just saying, as an informal statement of preference, that I think that people who don't dress up are morally wrong, and will go to hell when they die.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 7:58 PM
So, for instance, one of the "proofs" of Evelina's innate superiority to her cousins is that she appreciates the *music* at the opera, rather than the occasion and the spectacle. But that is, itself, a form of snobbery, as the class distinction in that novel makes clear.
The person who likes the music and doesn't care for the occasion (leaving spectacle aside) doesn't have to be a snob about it. (Who's Evelina?) Frankly I don't see the relevance. I'm not saying: all you people who like the occasion, you all suck, you're lesser than I am, go away. I mean, you need some pretext for the occasion, right? Pure occasion is hard to come by. But I think it's a little snotty to get mad at people who aren't concerned to fit into others' conception of what the occasion is because they aren't doing so. A likes the music, B likes dressing up and going out. Fine. They needn't look down on one another or become irked that the other is raining on the one's parade. It's petulant.
Otherwise, why not save the price of the ticket and listen to it on a CD at home? Yes, the musical experience is somewhat less satisfying, but surely the comfort, convenience, and anti-elitism more than outweigh that.
There are a host of reasons! I think the CD is a very bad format for classical music, because you get the same program over and over again, and the same performance; no interpretation. NTM hearing music live is totally different. (I really like watching the performers, myself; among other things, it gets me to notice things about the music that I wouldn't otherwise.) And of course going out to a concert is a social thing to a much greater extent than inviting people over to hear the new CD you just got. It's an occasion to that extent. I just don't see why I should treat it as a capital O suit-and-tie Occasion.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 8:06 PM
Well, if I wanted to pursue the ridiculous CD argument, I'd point out that for the price of a ticket, you could buy a different CD.
And as you say, the social aspect of it matters. Part of the social aspect is that the opera / symphony are seen as dress-up type occasions. You can object to this, and choose to dress according to your objections, but I assume you recognize that this is the norm, and that dressing down, rather than up, is the decision that refutes the norm (and is therefore, strictly speaking, a breach of etiquette).
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 8:13 PM
You know, carrying on this discussion in two media simultaneously is kind of distracting.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 8:17 PM
There's a difference between saying
you shouldn't have to dress up to be deemed acceptable
and
you shouldn't dress up at all for the occasion
Am I completely wrong about this, or is it not possible to go to a certain kind of restaurant where both those dressed up and those dressed casually, but not slobbishly, are both acceptable without casting aspersions on each other's characters? It's the universalising - this is an Occasion, dress up!; this is an occasion, dress down! - that grates. Going out can mean different things to different people, let them dress accordingly.
Except for bear-baiting, where only the most extraordinarily stylish clothing is acceptable, except for running shoes, which are advisable in case things get out of hand.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 8:17 PM
Throw in a "fo" and a "fum" and let's see how tough dsquared really is
But he's not an Englishman.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:46 PM
Actually I do only fight at weekends (and rarely enough then), mainly because I don't drink during the week all that much any more. On weekdays I am in work for 0620 (on the Tube) and home at around 1900 (also on the Tube) so I don't get much chance to crash cars or annoy my neighbours. I swear the shoes I'm thinking about are basketball shoes; they have a hell of a lot of bouncy padding on the feet which wouldn't make much sense for a wrestler.
I think the opera thing is what I would call town versus country. If I'm in London I would not get dressed up to go to a concert, because it's not that unusual a thing to do, because I would probably be going with music industry pals who don't wear suits and because I would not want to look like a provincial sales manager down from Coventry for the big occasion of the year. If I was back home with my parents, say, and we all went out to a concert or the opera I would probably wear a suit because it would be a much bigger deal for all the rest of the people there and thus it would be disrespectful to turn up in casual clothes.
Opera is different; in principle, one ought to wear a dinner jacket (what I believe the Europeans call "un smoking" and Yanks call a "tuxedo") but that is a reason to duck out of invitations to go to the opera rather than anything else - opera is for the most part shouty bollocks anyway. Since I paid five quid for tickets the last time I went to the opera and it was the ENO performance at the Proms, I did not get dressed up like a toff for fear of looking a twat.
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 12:52 AM
"shouty bollocks"
Best description of opera I have ever heard.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 4:38 AM
you're right, basketball boots it is. high-tops, i have heard. maybe the wresting shoe trend has not left williamsburg yet. or italy.
look out for it in 1-2 years in urban areas near you!
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 5:03 AM
crap. if the wrestling shoe link doesn't work... and you still have not lost interest in Shoe Trends of the Future... click on "adidas prajna high," at the page it does send you to.
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 5:08 AM
"Fear of looking a twat" is a phrase I expected to find in a different context, at the Mineshaft.
As for the "dressing up for the opera" argument, I'm forced to say that I agree with Ben in principle but B in practice.
Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 6:55 AM
I think that Ben's argument has at least one major flaw, in that dressing up is not, in practice, an added expense for anyone likely to go to the opera at all. The Miss Manners (literally, I'm remembering a column here) term for the appropriate level of dress is one's "Sunday Best" -- whatever clothes one does have that one would wear to something that one recognizes as an occasion. Someone living in grinding poverty may not have any such outfit, but almost anyone else, even living on a very low budget, has something that they think of as their dress-up clothes in which to do honor to an occasion. (Now, anyone who would object to an out-of-style dress, or an old suit, on an opera attendee who didn'[t have anything better would be an incredible asshole, but we're not talking about lame dress-up clothes, we're talking about jeans and fleece.) So I don't think there's anything to the argument that thinking of the opera as a dress-up occasion is economically exclusive. Class exclusive maybe, but not economically.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 7:41 AM
I like those wrestling shoes. Although I'm too old for them. I wish they didn't have those stupid stripes.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 7:51 AM
I am nearly breathless with pride that my comment on pleats over at Stay of Execution has contributed in a small way to this 177-comment thread.
In my defense (if necessary) I wish to point out that my pleated pants are all dress trousers, not khakis or (heaven forfend) jeans. They consist of two +/- $600 suits and perhaps four other pairs.
The women implicated in my post, since someone asked, were my ex-girlfriend SE, and my good friend AB. Both women, and in particular SE, are quite well-dressed themselves and could easily win the attention of any man they chose out of a fashion line-up. So I felt their opinions were trustworthy.
Meanwhile, I intend to capitalize on this whole issue. Anyone wishing to update his wardrobe to Sherry's specifications should visit my new web-based service www.flattenmypants.com. We'll take the pleats out of any pair of trousers for $15.99. Three-day turnaround service is available.
Posted by turboglacier | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 7:59 AM
I am suspended between mirth and horror contemplating pleated jeans.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 8:02 AM
Wait, have those gone out of style?
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 8:03 AM
A lot of 80's women's jeans were pleated. High waisted, roomier in the hips, incredibly ugly....
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 8:14 AM
High waisted, roomier in the hips, incredibly ugly....
Must resist cheap joke. Must resist.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 8:23 AM
Weighing in on the opera talk: in my head, I'm with Ben: conceptions of elitism are a big problem for opera and concert-hall music (I hate the term "classical"). And I respect his motives for dressing down. In my heart, I side with B, but I must say that it's a completely emotional reaction for me, not grounded in logic. And the more I examine it, the more I realize that my lament is not for opera or symphony or ballet per se, but for a larger decline in cultural standards of dress. Ben's argument is a good one, especially because he's talking about a very real problem for a very specific set of institutions. I suspect (though I may be wrong) that B's reaction comes from the same place mine does, and is not exclusive to the music world. Again, I utterly sympathize with B here, since I tend to feel the same way.
Grudgingly, I'll admit that Ben probably has the high ground: I can lament an erosion of standards all the livelong day, but stamping my feet and demanding that we go back to an era in which people got dressed in tuxedos for dinner won't do any good. The votes have all been counted, and people have overwhelmingly chosen this more casual, fleece-and-jeans aesthetic. It is not mine, but I can see that I'm in the minority.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 8:54 AM
The classical musicians I know would take an expanded, engaged audience in any form.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 9:21 AM
I'll start going to classical concerts when they let me bring popcorn, peanuts and soda to my seat, to snack on while I hear the tunes!
Hey is this thread bringing to mind the Rossini-Beethoven debate in Gravity's Rainbow, for anybody besides me?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 9:26 AM
Joe,
There can be no doubt that American society has become more 'dressed down' in the past nearly thirty years.
Around these parts I saw it happen when the Federal energy saving efforts in the 80's required businesses to be warmer in the summer and colder in the winter. My company loosened the dress code mostly, I suspect, because it cost the company nothing and it was seen as a benefit by the employees.
I wish I knew more about historical fashions. Why were uniforms so much more common in the 50's? I'm thinking about everything from how gas station attendants dressed to how movies showed, as you say, people wearing tuxedoes to dinner.
What changed? Why do people now choose comfort over style more and more? Could it be because the actual working class wage has fallen for the last 30 years so we now have less disposable income?
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 9:27 AM
The Miss Manners (literally, I'm remembering a column here) term for the appropriate level of dress is one's "Sunday Best" -- whatever clothes one does have that one would wear to something that one recognizes as an occasion. Someone living in grinding poverty may not have any such outfit, but almost anyone else, even living on a very low budget, has something that they think of as their dress-up clothes in which to do honor to an occasion.
Miss Manners is dead wrong on this one (or rather, probably right for the provinces, which I suppose is a different thing). Such an outfit will, usually, make you look like the proverbial sales manager from Coventry down for the big occasion. If you are too poor to dress up but like the opera or theatre, then move down to the city, where it is more congenial to be poor anyway and where the social convention is not so rigid, mainly because there is a larger community of people like Ben.
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 9:54 AM
Why do people now choose comfort over style more and more?
Because it fucking makes sense.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 10:03 AM
Class exclusive maybe, but not economically.
A clearer way to make the point I was trying to make might be that I don't want going to the opera or symphony or whatnot to be an occasion you have to dress up for, because you only dress up for rare occasional outings, and I would prefer it if going to such music was more a part of everyday activity, as is going to just about any other sort of concert, because I like it and would like to see it be more popular (or at least viable).
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 10:09 AM
Ben, the other problem (of which I'm sure you're aware) is the sources of funding for these institutions are mostly people who want them to be about fancy dress and society and all that. They're funded by the upper class, so the upper class naturally feels that the institutions belong to them. The elitism is coming, first and foremost, from the elitist patrons, of which there are many.
This may be changing with more and more corporate sponsorship, but I don't know if that's any better or worse.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 10:16 AM
That's the last straw.
There really are rules for this sort of thing. They are not anything like what Sherry's calling "rules", which are distillations of the fashions of the moment. They are more like what dsquared is suggesting, but you lot are speaking a babel of languages about this.
There is nothing wrong with defying the rules, especially if you do it stylishly. And Joe D is of course correct that in certain circles, defying the rules is the rule.
But Labs's instincts (he's a deep-dyed WASP, isn't he?) are essentially right: if you want to look like a member of the professional classes in America, there are the rules that e.g. ben should follow if he wants to buy three suits to last him through five years of conference papers, job talks, and other work occasions, or that any male person should follow if they want to look proper, but not like a <inelegant epithet SB hates>.
Suits. If you're only going to have a few suits whose function is to make you look like The Man, this is what you need.
Fabric. Charcoal gray or navy, plain or very subtle pattern (e.g. chalk stripe) all-weather wool.
Jacket. Two or three-button single-breasted, center vent in the back. Bogey and Cary Grant can wear double-breasted jackets. You are not Bogey or Cary Grant. If you are already an investment banker, or tenured professor, you can pretend if you like, otherwise you can't.
Trousers. And good lord, they are not "a pant". Pleats (forward, not reverse) and cuffs somewhat above 1 inch but below 2 inches in depth. If you are Fred Astaire, you can show some of your socks so that people will watch your feet. If you are Snoop Dogg, you can let your trousers puddle around your ankles. Note: you are not Fred Astaire or Snoop Dogg. Get your trousers to break crisply on the tops of your lace-up dress shoes.
Shirts. Wide variety of collars acceptable. dsquared is correct that button-down collars not fashionable with suits over the past five-ten years, but they're acceptable. In America, barrel cuffs are becoming on younger men, French cuffs are a way of asserting your flashiness. In England, barrel cuffs are totally naff. Want to avoid making choices? Get shirts of white or blue with spread collars.
Evening wear. dsquared is correct in assuming that the rules are clearer in England than here. In England, and in the America of fifty years ago, a tuxedo is not formal wear; a white tie, which is properly worn with tails, is. America today is not either of those countries, and unless you work in a State department job, you're not likely ever to be asked to wear real formal wear.
But for fancy dinners, or for the opera or symphony, you should wear...
Dinner jacket. Black, wool, single button, center vent. Shawl collar faced with silk or satin, width of which should be neither too much nor too little.
Trousers. Also black, wool, silk or satin stripe down the outside of leg. Break as above, no cuffs. Will have pleats, but won't matter because you will wear a cummerbund. Which will also, heaven help us, be black, like your tie. See above under, you are not Fred Astaire. You are also not Bertie Wooster, and if you were, Jeeves would make your life difficult.
Shirt. Pleated front. Again, per Jeeves, you cannot wear a soft-front shirt with a dinner jacket. Don't ask. Also do not ask about ruffles. You can have a wing collar or a fold-down collar. If you do not tie your own tie (you should tie your own tie, which should be black and silk) do not have a wing collar shirt, because then we can all see the hardware holding your clip-on tie together. Chicks do not dig this.
Shoes. You can in fact have one pair of shoes that will serve in both cases, though technically it's not right for formal wear. Get black lace-ups, what dsquared is calling brogues and what Americans often call Oxfords. Get them good and shined, and if you don't know what you're doing get someone else to do it. Your belt should match your shoes.
This will not make you look stylish. It will not make you look like you care about clothes. It will make you look like a normal, grown-up male person of the professional classes. I have omitted mention of ties because they do in fact rather vary with the season. But you should not wear a school tie unless you went to that school. And Americans, generally speaking, did not. And English people generally regard school ties as naff these days.
</Jeeves>
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 10:33 AM
But for fancy dinners, or for the opera or symphony, you should wear...
A fucking cummerbund? You will not look normal.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 10:42 AM
I wear jeans to my white-collar pharma industry job every day (except for the ten or so days out of the year when clients would be on my floor) and it's easily the single most enjoyable thing about my job.
I don't work at an opera house, though.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 10:43 AM
I don't want going to the opera or symphony or whatnot to be an occasion you have to dress up for, because you only dress up for rare occasional outings, and I would prefer it if going to such music was more a part of everyday activity,
My argument with you here is that I think it is pleasant and charming (and not particularly oppressive) for dress-up occasions to be a frequent, rather than an incredibly infrequent thing. Why can't a special occasion worthy of pretty clothes occur every week or so, rather than once a year? Concerts can be both everyday (or, at least, a several times a month thing) and an occasion. Think again about the term 'Sunday best' -- most people used to manage to dress up nicely once a week.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 10:46 AM
All of a sudden, apo, I wonder if you know someone I know. He lives in Durham and has a pharma job.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 10:49 AM
A fucking cummerbund? You will not look normal.
Yes, you will. What are you wearing, a vest / waistcoat?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 10:50 AM
He lives in Durham and has a pharma job.
Possibly, though this area has literally hundreds of companies in the industry.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 10:53 AM
Yes, you will. What are you wearing, a vest / waistcoat?
The last time I changed from what I had been wearing to go to a symphony, I think just put on a decent shirt and sport coat. (Actually, this was also the last time I went to a symphony at all, IIRC.)
I usually look at what other people are wearing, and I think I someone in a cummerbund would stand out, especially someone my age.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:06 AM
Okay, I was describing evening dress. If you think evening dress is not appropriate for your local symphony, and maybe it isn't, then of course you shouldn't wear a cummerbund with any other kind of outfit.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:09 AM
There goes my cummerbund and bermuda shorts ensemble.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:10 AM
Sadly, Ben is right on this. A cummerbund would stand out at the symphony in New York as well. A smart looking shirt and sport coat, and possibly a tie, seems right based on my experience.
I also think that it's preferable to wear clothes that are well-tailored and look fantastic than to wear ill-fitting but more-formal attire, even if one is a step below most other people at the event. A terrific shirt with a sharp jacket is much better than a suit that is one size too big, or a suit with a tie that doesn't match, or the like.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:13 AM
I also think that it's preferable to wear clothes that are well-tailored and look fantastic
This is a seperate issue: that what consitutes dress-up clothes changes over time with fashion. If what you would wear when you wanted to look dressed up and fantastic for a special occasion isn't a suit, go for it (that is, the results might be pleasing or displeasing, but it wouldn't annoy me in the same way that jeans and fleece do).
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:20 AM
I guess ogged should be on his guard when he goes out.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:25 AM
Also, "separate". I'm sorry.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:26 AM
I bought a bunch of clothes last night based on this post. Banana Republic and J. Crew are having sales. I really should have got more toys for the kids.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:27 AM
There's a rat in separate, is what I was taught. Not that that makes any sense as a mnemonic.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:29 AM
Likewise castration.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:30 AM
Private message to Ben: you didn't get a chance to see Dr. Atomic, did you?
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:30 AM
Not if the misspelling to which you're prone is "seperate", anyway. "Separete", sure.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:31 AM
Not if the misspelling to which you're prone is "seperate", anyway. "Separete", sure.
Oh a rat. Duh.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:31 AM
"a rat", Ben.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:31 AM
Oh yeah so never mind the castration crack.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:32 AM
Joe: no. I made some token lookings but I think the tickets I could actually afford were gone, or some such.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:33 AM
I think the tickets I could actually afford were gone, or some such
See? Poor people are going to the opera too! And new opera, no less.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:34 AM
I bought a bunch of clothes last night based on this post. Banana Republic and J. Crew are having sales
It really pisses me off when a website tells me my browser (Firefox) is unsupported, and then includes Firefox in its list of supported browsers.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:35 AM
Ben, WMYBSALB? (I saw that, and contemplated an apologetic follow-up post, and thought, Nah, no one's going to give me a hard time about it. I was so wrong.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:36 AM
Ever since Labs's little "noted in passing", I feel obliged to live up to expectations.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:37 AM
I just figured out WMYBSALB. This is the most victorious I've felt all week.
Posted by Tarrou | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:44 AM
I'm still in the dark as to how Ben is being SALB.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:49 AM
203 and 205, Joe.
Posted by Tarrou | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:50 AM
Oh. That's way up there. I thought that Ben's comment was somehow obliquely busting on Joe O, and everyone was down but me.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:52 AM
FL: I'm proud to say I'm a Hickey Freeman man
Ok, layers are in. Yes. So I go to check said site. It seems to me that the guy on the front page is anxiously awaiting his hot date with a fucking polar bear.
Some green-colored thing as the bottom layer, then a thick lumberjack shirt and then some dorky sweater that's clearly trying to escape the coming catastrophe, and then a vest that really looks like those vests for small dogs that you get at the pet store. Also, apparently, he just had an accident that involved urination and a light socket.
So I'm like guessing here that really really sweaty guys make polar bears hott.
ash
['Snow, tasty fish guts, and the smell of blubber!']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:56 AM
You're half right, at any rate.
Posted by Tarrou | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:56 AM
224 to 222, natch.
Posted by Tarrou | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:58 AM
Why does Bertie call it the"full soup and fish?"
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 3:10 PM
I have worked in several opera houses, and I have to agree with Wolfson - there is no real need to get dressed up to hear music that you like (except that I often wear tights to the opera, or cowboy hats, or pirate outfits, but only on stage and only when I'm getting paid.)
And very few people actually wear tuxedos to the opera, even to the Met, except on opening night. In fact, regional houses may have a higher proportion of tuxedo-wearing men than big-city houses like Lincoln Center, where a man wearing a tuxedo would probably feel a little bit out of place.
Posted by aaron | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 9:54 PM
When I was little, my mother used to take me to the opera in San Francisco (usually standing room tickets). Half the fun was standing on the balcony overlooking the lobby checking out the fabulously gorgeous frivolous lovely clothes--it was part of the show. I miss that.
Posted by Joanna | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 10:55 PM