Shall we start planning the Naked Unfogged Meet-up now?
Ill-fitting clothing, whether because it's poorly made, or because the wearer is trying to follow a trend that doesn't flatter her figure, can really obscure someone's physical assets. I suspect this is more of a problem for women.
I assume everyone's seen the century project?
And there are a lot of opportunities to look worse. Chests that really need support are not so pretty bra-less. I suppose that I'd agree if it were an underwear-only party, agree that is that people might look better that way. I wouldn't agree to go to one as a guest.
4- So you're hosting the Naked Meetup, then?
I have noticed this. I have often wondered if the bony bits are photoshopped out of magazine ads with skinny models in them, because they always look better on the page than they do on the catwalk in extremely skimpy clothes.
There's an ad, I think for Chanel, that appears on lots of bus stop shelters in NYC with a Kate-Moss-alike model covering her breasts with one arm and leaning back against a wall. (It may, indeed, be Moss, for all I know.) Every time I see it, I think, where are her bones? The angle she's leaning at would point her sternum out and her shoulders should stick out, but they don't. I mean, the skinniness looks cute and pixie-ish and attractive without all those horrible bone-points poking out. And that's the problem. Unless you are dating a snake, you'll never get to have that sensuous skinniness without a few sharp points involved.
No, no, BG. Underwear parties just look slighty risqué. True nudism isn't really all that erotic, and isn't supposed to be.
Clothes makes most women (definitely not true for guys) look worse.
I'm *this close* to giving up on you, Ogged.
I have often wondered if the bony bits are photoshopped out of magazine ads with skinny models in them
Yes.
1. even if it's just you and me, Apo.
Chests that need support aren't perky and round like grapefruits without support, but that doesn't make them unattractive.
I happen to think clothes make most men look worse, too. I love the look of completely normal-looking nude guys, while magazine-model dudes look really scary and unpleasant nude IRL.
Clothes makes most women (definitely not true for guys) look worse
Disagree entirely, libertine.
It's astonishing the amount of photoshop work most ad & glamour shots get.
7: Yes, but slightly risque might look better than nudity which as you say is not necessarily erotic. Underwear-only could be simultaneously better than nudity and the fully-clothed state.
BTW, Does unfogged now have a spell check or is this a new Firefox thing? All of my misspelled words are getting underlined in red.
Also, maybe the reason ogged thinks men don't look better naked is because he doesn't want to have sex with dudes. I, for one, am nearly almost always suprised by how much more attractive a man gets when he takes his clothes of. It's often quite surprising.
maybe the reason ogged thinks men don't look better naked is because he doesn't want to have sex with dudes
Possible. Also might be because most of the naked guys I see are over 70 and speak Yiddish.
Well, there you go. Dudes under 40 (possibly ones over 40, too, but I wouldn't know) look pretty damn good.
I comment in the buff, in the hopes that it will improve my comments.
I will here pull out a Fieldingism and state that health and youth are the primary causes of lust. Just about anyone in excellent health between the ages of 18 and 35 is going to be a knockout to me with their clothes off.
25: Damn, I'm one year over-the-hill!
But not by m. leblanc's standards, I see.
So is my bf, actually, and my own upper limit seems to hover somewhere in the mid-40's, but I understand not everyone would go as far with me on that.
This is why I say that women are not very good at objectifying men. Where's Pants? No way could that be the standard--or even an acceptable--opinion in the gay male community. Keep the self-loathing strong, my brethren!
It's a wonderfully democratic sentiment, but I think we can guage the reality by thinking about the way we feel when we go to the beach... where there are plenty of people who make you think: please, please, please put some clothes on.
31: Yeah, but those people tend to be 80-year-old hairy dudes in g-strings.
Clothes makes most women (definitely not true for guys) look worse.
The only possible explanation for this sentence apart from your documented, copious, and extensive wrongness is, you hang out with disproportionately snappy male dressers and abnormally poor female dressers.
In this case, I seem not to be the only one who believes it, slol.
I will try to stay on Beck's good side in this thread and only post my agreement with Dammitman!
34. i don't see anyone agreeing with you...
Are you all judging these bodies only on sexualized definitions of attractiveness? When I see naked bodies, I'm usually overcome with that sort of Natural Geographic wonder at the infinite variety. That is, when I'm not already in a sexualized situation.
32: You know, some cultures think wisdom is sexy.
Part of getting naked is your shape, but part of getting naked is your skin. The photoshopping that sets off my freaked-out-by-undressing alarms is not of bones or bumps but of skin flaws. My legs have some nasty scars from insect bites and other marks. I kinda feel like most women have much more close-to-model legs than anythign else. Somehow the importance of legs escaped me in adolesence, and I never took good care of them--thus more scarring and marks. Since beautiful and flawless legs are constantly on display, I'm a lot less likely to think, well, people will actually appreciate mine in real life. Among SO's I'm probably much more freaked out about wearing a short skirt or shorts (which I almost never wear in public) than hanging out topless. On the tiny chance I'd shed cultural inhibitions to go to a naked party, I'd want to wear opaque stockings.
Natural Geographic
The nudist spin-off.
I, for one, am nearly almost always suprised by how much more attractive a man gets when he takes his clothes of. It's often quite surprising.
I find this so, so weird.
Somehow the importance of legs escaped me in adolesence, and I never took good care of them
In all seriousness and consideration of your concerns and earnest desire for your welfare, I say fuck that. No, seriously, fuck that.
When I was about nine or ten, my father once surprised me picking a scab on my leg. "Don't do that," he said, "you'll want to have pretty legs when you're older." And I laughed in his face, and I do not regret having done so.
Scars are FINE. Unmarked legs have probably not had as much fun.
... most of the naked guys I see are over 70 and speak Yiddish.
ogged, maybe you should lay off the internet porn. it sounds like you're getting into a pretty freaky niche.
Here's what I think it is: clothes are markers. They're markers of status, wealth, cultural leanings, they often have political overtones, they're generic, most men don't dress that well, or if they do they dress generically. When those markers are gone, it's a lot easier to see someone as attractive because of their body, rather than making a judgment based on those markers, which is what we do a lot of the rest of the time. So, for example, someone who looks just kinda dorky or awkward with clothes on can look hott when the clothes come off. The markers, the cues that we use to place someone in a favored or disfavored social group, are gone.
43: Scars are FINE.
In fact, they're better than fine. They're intriguing.
How come they didn't have any of these naked parties when I was in college?
I want to have a naked meet up just to see what I'm missing by not being a college kid now. Also, to see if Apo's carpet matches his drapes.
Not surprisingly, ogged overstated his case, but I think that women are more likely to be wearing unflattering clothing than men, mostly due to our society's insistence that all men dress basically alike. The range of men's clothes is such that, while Docker's tend to make asses look big/saggy, they don't pinch and contort in the bizarre ways that fashion-informed women's clothing can.
That said, I think far more women are able to really improve their appearances with good clothing choices - I really can't figure out why some clothes flatter me, whereas I can predict, with some ballpark accuracy, what might flatter my wife. And I think that goes back to my previous point - 8 pairs of khakis, 2 that look good one me - who can tell? But between A-line, Empire waist, and other broad categories, it's fairly obvious what should flatter a given body type.
I believe Apo has explained that he has hardwood floors.
Not surprisingly, ogged overstated his case, but I think that women are more likely to be wearing unflattering clothing than men
U R insane.
OK, the mention of khakis is the one piece of evidence so far that ogged's thesis may be right. I've never seen a man in khakis who wouldn't be improved by taking them off.
45: I was going to say something about that, too. Clothes are a huge distraction, and create artificial contrasts - 2 people, one slightly more attractive, but if the nicer-looking one is a better dresser, suddenly s/he's much more attractive.
Also, I would imagine that, in a room full of naked people, the continuity of the spectrum would be more apparent: everyone's boobs sag a bit, everyone's gut sticks out some, and it all becomes a matter of degree, reducing focus on some specific 'flaw.'
Of course, all that said, we're talking about 18-21 yr olds - they're all hott, whether they know it or not.
50: No, seriously, khakis aside, what do men (in non-shorts + socks situations) wear that compares with white slacks on 99% of women, or short skirts on thick-legged women, or dresses that emphasize big hips without showing off the accompanying bust?
I know women judging other women's dress is a seriously patriarchy-perpetuating practice, but it's also informative as hell. Women's clothing is a fucking minefield - so much so that the .0001% hottest women in the world (Hollywood starlets) often appear in public looking not-hott.
"18-21 yr olds" s/b "18-35 yr olds"
Scars are FINE. Unmarked legs have probably not had as much fun.
I agree with JM.
50: Also, note that I intend "unflattering" to mean "uglier-making," not merely "doesn't show off assets." Jeans & a flannel shirt may not look hot on most guys, but rarely do they make a guy look like he has serious body flaws. Whereas any tight and/or above-the-knee skirt can look awful on perfectly lovely women.
54: the original post references a college party; I wasn't judging, just pointing out that our sample group is young and hott.
53. finally someone agrees with Ogged. Let's stone him.
54: You are making Zadfrack, me, and everyone else in the 35-40 demographic feel old and in the way.
JRoth, I think 53 is pretty offensive. First, it doesn't even make sene. Why would "short skirts on thick-legged women" be less flattering than those same women naked, when presumably their entire legs are on display (heaven forbid!)? It's the same kind of "marker" phenomenon, but for different reasons: women's clothing has become a reason for which to hate them. Misogyny is easily acted out against too-short skirts, or shoes that are too sexy or not sexy enough, breasts that are busting out of or not filling them out enough, and above all, women who have the gall to be too fat (or! Too-skinny! God, bones sticking out are so gross). For just an example about how clothes are one of the easiest ways to hate on women, see this recent Tapped post.
You can't just state these things as fact "short skirts on these women look bad!" when assessment of these things is all bound up in the cultural values of clothing and the frequency with which women are insulted because of their clothing choice.
The scar on my elbow has not noticeably made me more attractive.
I intend "unflattering" to mean "uglier-making,"
I don't see how that can be when ogged's (and your) original point was that women look better naked than clothed. That means that the clothes are making her look worse. Thus, uglier-making.
60: Sorry, m. - I knew I was in dangerous territory, and hoping for the benefit of the doubt. But my entire point is that a woman with thick legs may, in fact, look quite good naked - after all, her body is all of a piece, and there are organic relationships between her body parts that in all likelihood make those legs look good, or at least neutral. BUT, if you put those legs beneath a miniskirt that was designed to display slender legs, then they'll look bad.
This has been my entire argument. Clothes set off bodies to ill or beneficial effects - they're intended to. And I think that women's clothing is designed to do more, and so is more likely to fail. Saying that a picture frame makes a picture look bad is NOT the same as insulting the picture. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I think I was pretty consistent in my argument.
Most khakis make men look worse. I'm not going to back away from that point.
65: You're wrong. Khakis are the little black dress of male casual clothing.
65 -- Crap. That probably means I will have to get undressed at the meetup if I want to look attractive.
63: Huh? That is my point. Women's clothing is likely to be unflattering/ugly-making. So when you remove the clothing, less ugly=more pretty. QED!
I clarified because I suspected that Tim, in 50, was suggesting that men's clothing as a whole isn't especially flattering - that it's not pretty-making. Which I don't dispute. But by the same token, I think it's less ugly-making as well.
69: Oh, I brilliantly misread the portion that I quoted. Weird.
SCMTim, have you *ever* read a paean to how sexy men look in their khakis? One written by a flesh-and-blood woman?
71: You weren't asking me, but... Kimberley Jones to the rescue. If that is "her" real name.
65: Damn. I wish someone would tell me these things before I base my entire wardrobe around something.
So what does the Unfoggedtariat suggest that men wear to cover their lower halves instead of khakis? Something that is both (a) acceptable in an office environment, and (b) doesn't require expensive and environmentally-unfriendly dry cleaning?
JM is dating some skinny (skinnier than I!) Iranian dude; you don't have to respect her opinion about how men should look.
70: OK, that makes me feel better. But are you still offended at 53?
73: Linen pants in the summer (they drape really nicely) and wool in the winter. The former does require some ironing, and the latter sometimes (not always!) requires dry cleaning, but you know, put a napkin in your lap.
73: I wear Dockers, Perry Ellis, etc. machine-washable slacks. They cost the same as khakis, and they don't scream "fashion victim" to the casual eye.
JM is dating some skinny (skinnier than I!) Iranian dude;
I thought you were a total fatty these days, ogged?
Oh, and mohair.
Plus, khakis don't have to suck. They just tend to. What sucks (as I said above) is that there's no way to tell, and it's disspiriting trying on 12 apparently identical pairs of pants in hopes of finding one that looks good.
I thought you were a total fatty these days, ogged?
Not apparently, only actually: less muscle, more fat, but look (in clothes) and weigh about the same as before.
75: Yeah, my original point still stands. Although I never said that I personally was offended.
Although I guess I am, a little bit. I'm irked at the notion that there are certain things that people can and can't wear. I've heard enough criticism of women wearing clothes that they are "too fat" to be wearing for a lifetime. It's so damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you're a woman, you're supposed to be sexy, but if you try to look sexy and don't pull it off, you're ridiculed. I just don't buy that some legs are suitable for public baring and others aren't.
75: Clothes that require ironing are evil.
When I first moved to NY I thought that shavetail was epidemic - there were scarcely any cute male tushies for me to ogle. I figured with all the walking, everybody had walked their butts clean off. Then I realized it was the jeans - all the guys wear these oversized jeans than hang down and make it look like they've got no butt. Can't wait until THAT trend passes. After all, it should be one of the great perqs of living in a walking city that there would be many well-exercised, attractive tushes around, and that you could often find yourself walking behind in view of one with complete freedom to stare pervily.
I offer this as an example of clothes obscuring male body niceness.
72.--Talk about stacking the deck! An erotic scene in a movie directed by Almodovar and choreographed by Pina Bausch, in which the female dancers are in slips and the male dancers topless and, coincidentally, khakis. Suuuure, it was the khakis that made it sexy.
Whew, that's the most strenuous use of the subjunctive I've attempted in a while. I'm exhausted.
85: Hey, it was the only thing I could find. What can I say?
80: Fair 'nuff, although by that standard we can't actually discuss the aesthetics of the human form at all. I mean, if the statement, The fashion industry generates products that, in a variety of ways, are bad for women (because if not for the patriarchy, women wouldn't be dicking around with unflattering clothes), is offensive to women, then maybe we'd better focus on what's wrong with ogged's musical taste.
Actually, on further listening, I think "Rock with you"'s danceability is just particular to me, and is probably not suitable for a large-scale dancing experiment, in which I would predict its failure.
74.--ogged, are you really sure that you want to begin impeaching people's arguments based solely on whom they are or are not dating?
Only when it benefits me, JM. So maybe we should stop now.
In the context of 88, 89 is fucking hilarious.
"I just don't buy that some legs are suitable for public baring and others aren't."
But you're not really saying anything here. Do you wish that people were naturally more attractive in a wider variety of clothing? Or that people would find others more attractive in general, and be less picky about appearance? Or that they would ignore clothing when judging attractiveness? Or are you just complaining that some people are hot, and others are not? (Which is not to criticize you for making such complaints. But empty complaints don't make an argument.)
Oh, and I agree with ogged.
Sad to say, my vain reaction to this thread has been to think, "Christ, I hate my clothes."
The logical response, rfts, is to go without.
Mmm. One of the more annoying things about getting to the 21st century and realizing that it didn't turn out to be the future after all is the absence of unisex jumpsuits. Heck, I'd be happy with a simple Mao jacket and pants, as long as everyone else was wearing one.
Heck, I'd be happy with a simple Mao jacket and pants, as long as everyone else was wearing one.
That surprises no one, Comrade.
Or are you just complaining that some people are hot, and others are not?
Yep, that's totally what I'm saying.
I think I deserve a little more credit than that, don't you think? My point is that the impulse to say "x people shouldn't wear x clothes, which should only be worn by skinny people" sucks. It starts out as a benign discussion of what constitutues "flattering" clothing and easily shifts into just another conversation about how women look bad.
You can think whatever you want when you see a "thick-legged" woman in a short skirt, but it's conversations like these about what women should and shouldn't wear that make for a world full of women walking around thinking everyone is going "eww, gross" when they look at her.
SCMTim, have you *ever* read a paean to how sexy men look in their khakis? One written by a flesh-and-blood woman?
I've never read a paean to how sexy men look in any kind of pants written by a woman. As a general rule, and in my limited experience, women tend to focus above the waist. Comments below the waist are largely restricted to penises, thighs, shoes, and occasionally asses.
By "little black dress," I meant only that khakis are hard to fuck up. Then you can focus on the things that matter--shirts, ties, and shoes.
I think you'd look good in a Mao jacket and pants, LB.
101: My point is that the impulse to say "x people shouldn't wear x clothes, which should only be worn by skinny people" sucks.
Have to admit this confuses me, too. If you don't take issue with people having aesthetic preferences about others' bodies, it's not entirely clear why you would take issue with people talking about which clothes do and don't flatter certain types of bodies. If you're taking issue with a super-obnoxious variant of that sort of conversation, it's not entirely clear (to me, anyway) what you see of that in 53.
Scarey thread. Gonna go study baroque nudes, Rubens and Rembrandt's Sasha etc for evidence and enlightenment.
No point here asking if salt-and-pepper chest rugs are attractive, huh?
It's a cultural context thing -- while there's nothing inherently objectionable in saying "People with body type X are more flattered by mid-calf, stretchy skirts than they are by pleated minis", it's awfully close to the overly common "Oh my god, I can't believe she left the house like that. Could someone throw a tarp over her so I don't have to look at her ass?"
53 read to me much, much more like the former of those than the latter, and I wouldn't have taken exception to it, but it's an area where my hackles, at least, are very easy to raise.
103: That's my secret plan - in clothes that make everyone look rectangular, the naturally blocky are teh hott.
101:
"I think I deserve a little more credit than that, don't you think?"
Sorry, yes. Your argument irritates me for some reason, and I need to be more polite. FWIW, I intended the overtone to be "I think an argument could be made hat your argument ultimately reduces to this."
And I'm still not understanding the point of your point. Yes, it's a shame that because of the patriarchal patterns of discourse around dress and attractiveness that women are preoccupied with their appearance in a way that men aren't. But if it's these conversational patterns that create the problem, the only way to fix it is to just not talk about these things. Are you saying that we therefore have an obligation not to say things like JRoth was saying to avoid creating that preoccupation? I don't think you'd agree with that, but how does it not follow from your argument?
"My point is that the impulse to say "x people shouldn't wear x clothes, which should only be worn by skinny people" sucks."
And I have to say that, of course, to say that someone *shouldn't* wear some piece because one has a right not to be confronted with a bit of bare skin one doesn't find attractive is terribly presumptuous and rude. But JRoth didn't get anywhere close to that, did he?
But one *can* say that a person P "shouldn't" wear X with the understanding that wearing X would interfere with P's goals of beeing seen as dressing well and respectably and whatnot, which is inevitably about bowing to patriarchal demands. And "shouldn't" in that case would be wrong to the degree that P actively subverts those demands and accepts that social consequences.
On preview I think this is what LB is saying in 106.
Uh oh. The khaki-abuse puzzles me. I find them inoffensive on myself, and frankly, looking at pictures of myself as a teenager, "inoffensive" is a serious improvement.
The idea of trying on 12 pairs to find something that looks good puzzles me, because I have a difficult time imagining them not looking identical.
(Yeah, human nature--suck it, Foucault!)
Was it so long ago, ogged? Was it ever ago so long?
Don't mind me.
I completely understand LB's 106, and that the prevalence of the latter kind of discourse makes it harder for the former kind of discourse not to offend. Understandable though that may be, though, for some reason there are times when it starts to remind me of the rather absurd "niggardly" controversy.
113: It reminds me of the thread below, on not rejecting positions just because silly people hold them. Shouldn't we also refuse to reject positions just because they sound similar to truly objectionable positions?
Yeah, I had to step away for a bit, because I couldn't see how to say 96, 104, 106, & 109 without sounding like a whiny "nice guy." But seriously, I understand exactly how bad the "flattering clothes" discourse can be - I even referenced that in 53. But that doesn't mean that there's no way to talk about the actual effects of clothing on the appearance of bodies. It just means you have to choose your words carefully and consider the audience. I wouldn't touch the subject with a 50' pole over at Twisty's, but I figured it could be raised here.
And if you know that there are flattering khakis out there, how could you just grab the first pair off the shelf? I actually had a pair of khakis that I simply gave to Goodwill because they were so unflattering that I never wore them. Every day, I'd pick something else from the closet, and I decided that, if I'm going to own 5 pairs of non-denim, non-cargo pants, I should be happy with all five.
Also, to be clear, I buy clothes like twice a year, as they physically wear out (like every 4 years I need new cargo shorts). At that level of activity, I can afford to invest a little time in buying the right thing. Plus, I've been buying the same pair of blue jeans for 20 years (OK, maybe the waist size went up an inch or two), so that's a shopping task that takes no time at all.
Apparently similar pants can make a huge difference, but annoyingly manufacturers won't keep their styles stable so that you can rely on them. There was one particular cut of Gap khakis that was great on me -- I've forgotten the set of buzzwords that identified it -- but they stopped making them a couple of years ago.
118: I had the same experience with a particular cut of Levi's jeans.
Tragically, the most flattering shorts I've ever owned were French Army shorts from an Army-Navy in Boulder. Needless to say, when they failed (oddly, the seam alongside the pocket gave way) a decade later, I couldn't find a replacement (I was even able to try that same store).
To be honest, I haven't found a really flattering pair of khakis since HS. But my Docker's linens were so nice I got 2 pairs. Maybe I need to fly to Taiwan with a bolt of bland tan cotton and have the linens duplicated in khaki material.
Army pants for some reason have really nice lines for menswear. Back when I was cavorting with the fashion designer set, many of them admitted to buying new and vintage army stuff, cutting them open, and copying the patterns for their $500+ pants and $2000+ coats.
I had a pair of Army dress uniform pants that were great looking when I was a gawky kid -- flattering, indestructible, and impossible to wrinkle. I loved those pants. Men's pants just don't work on me the same way anymore.
Was it so long ago, ogged? Was it ever ago so long?
I meant it in the "suck eggs" way, SB.
Heck, I'd be happy with a simple Mao jacket and pants, as long as everyone else was wearing one.
I kinda want this.
on the "men look better unclothed" tip, i just got out my skii socks two nites ago when my apartment was totally frozen. They're these fuzzy woool things that go up to my knees. i was just thinking, contrary to most "men in socks only" images, i was really sexy.
124: No, you're not a hipster at all, w-lfs-n.
Very. All Smiths is danceable.
It's very danceable. We had it on the UnfoggeDCon dance party playlist.
Tim, the 'little black dress' for men is a skinny black suit.
Although i have a pair of these low rise khakis that i really love; they're about seven years old and i've never seen another pair so good, i'm really going to be sad when they wear out. Linen pants are just as hard to find in something other than 'business-casual seminar' fit. At least wool trousers sometimes are interesting with plaids or pinstripes and can be better tailored.
131: Not casual. Or you run in more formal circles than I do.
As a gentleman of "a certain age" (over 50), do you whippersnappers realize how hard it is to find comfy casual pants that don't look redunkulous? I don't need 150 pockets -- 4 will do quite nicely. I don't need, or want, "distressed" fabric -- it will be distressed enough when it sees what it has to live with. Plain, beige, functional khakis -- is that so difficult.
But my "problem" is miniscule compared with the women I know, for whom everyone in the world feels qualified to issue a fashion statement, and that rarely positive. To me, it's a short step to go from "X fashion looks good on women who look like Y" (sez who?) to "OMG?! She's wearing THAT??!!! Ewww, gross!"
125. "Men in socks only" is applicable mostly, if not totally, to standard-length white or black socks. Ya know, the 60's Porno Look.
People in clothes look much better. I remember who i could imagine naked not very outstanding who wore some interesting things that made them very hot. Looking unique gives some personality via your clothes and makes you something other than a part of the ape herd. The idea of everyone in leotards or Mao jackets or whatever uniform is just wretched.
I wish there was more approbation over guys wearing unflattering shit; common uniforms are baggy mens warehouse suits with insubstantial ties for work; stripey shirt with distressed baggy-assed jeans and kenneth cole shoes to bars, or oversized ts and khakis to run errands. These are a kneecapping of their public personhood. Am i the only straight man who likes men to dress well? Fashion makes people interesting; if they also have the right gender markers it somehow combines as the erotic combination of physical body and thinkingness of a human to become sexy, but its still really valuable if its not sexy.
Discussions of negative aspects of conciousness-of-women's-fashion always seem to elide over the future which woudl either be a commune of equality, which seems like hippy wishful thinking, or would involve some other sort of competition, which seems like a gnosticism and i'd like to hear an argument for a possible version. maybe there are better things to compete over, but i don't know of any. what are these 'better' things everyone has to do other than look great?
Simplistic 'thiner-is-better' and trendiness is stupid and smallminded but competitions have losers. People DO things, and they have to be positive or they will be competitive. People's understanding of the goals have to be realigned to useful ends, which is some sort of humanistic/jesus thing. Ugliness will reappear in some other form of girl-on-girl discourse without THAT focus. ANd theres some overlap in the 'hwat body shapes look best in what' like girls with thicker legs not wearing miniskirts, WTF??!??
Reading this thread, I agreed entirely with m. leblanc and JRoth at the same time.
Women's fashion is a string of landmines, and much of it feels like someone plunked themselves down, decided that a part of the body (legs, abs, shoulders, boobs) would be desirable that year, and then designed the clothing for 12-year-old anorexic boys.
So, on the one hand, I, a thick-legged chica, should not wear miniskirts. They don't flatter me. I should also not wear skinny jeans with a long flowing tunic, because then I look like a pregnant sausage. Clothes should work for me, not the other way around.
On the other hand, and here is where I agree with m. leblanc... women's clothing goes in trends, and if you're not of the 12-year-old anorexic type, at some point, one of the trends will look bad on you. At that point, your options are a) wear what fits you and be judged negatively for being out-of-style or b) wear what's in style so some jerk with a potbelly can roll his eyes because your legs/boobs/ass/collarbones weren't made for that style.
I don't get the sense that men's fashion is as unforgiving. On the other hand, the clear answer to 53 re: what do men wear? Trousers with waists that would have fit them in college, but no longer do, but are still worn, as their bellies will just spill over it.
113: I don't think it makes the claim-very-close-to-an-objectionable claim unassertable, but I do think it raises the conversation burden for the person who wishes to make that assertion. If I wanted to make an argument that [pick a group] were just naturally [pick a pejorative] but didn't want to endorse [some well-known frowned upon set of premises], I'd have a lot more work to do, and I should expect that I'll have to argue for some of my premises.
I think we can guage the reality by thinking about the way we feel when we go to the beach... where there are plenty of people who make you think: please, please, please put some clothes on.
That's because swimsuits make most people look bad--which means I agree with JRoth. Sorry LeBlanc. But it's true that some clothing flatters some body types, and some flatters others. I look great in tailored stuff, and ridiculous in frills and, as it happens, miniskirts: anything that cuts right at or above the knee makes my legs look awfully stumpy. OTOH, there *are* heavy women who look fabulous in short skirts; dunno if it's a ratio thing, or a shape thing, but it isn't about thickness per se. Swimsuits, like a lot of women's clothing, make a lot of people look bad b/c they're tight-fitting and then stop at exactly the wrong place, so that one's fat bulges over the tightness, which makes anyone (skinny girls too) look lumpy.
Khakis can be a shitty thing for guys in the same sense as the miniskirt thing for women. For many guys, they create a look that doesn't conform to the idealized male physique. They're light in color (non slimming), and often don't fit too well. So if you're even a slightly pudgy guy, khakis with a belt and a tucked in shirt often create a look that your hips are significantly wider than your shoulders. A good suit does the opposite.
I don't really think people say things like "OMG, she's wearing STRAIGHT LEG JEANS! onlyskinny jeans can be worn this year!" straw-fashionistas, maybe. You get bonus points if you wear stuff that is hip and trendy though, and especially distinctive stuff from the last couple of years gets you demerits.
Mmm, pregnant sausage.
I agree with Stumpy B about swimsuits. Worse than naked, for sure.
A broad-shouldered man in a well-cut suit is a thing to behold.
140: I think that's generally right, except that it seems that there's so many more ways for women's clothing to go wrong with respect to body type. Cf., "muffin tops", stirrup pants, tube tops, tank tops, miniskirts, and those awful leotard-like things with the snaps in the crotch.
140: I think that's generally right, except that it seems that there's so many more ways for women's clothing to go wrong with respect to body type.
Oh definitely.
Mmm, crotch snaps.
Well a lot of khakis fit not all that dissimilar to how suit pants fit. But high waists should only be worn with jackets to get the right division of the body. and high waisted pleanteds really need braces to fit well. true waisted pants with belts are just hard to fit unless you are especially fit. And even then they don't actually show off one's ass properly. So lots of guys end up wearing chinos on the hip or somehwere in between with a cinching belt. And, in general the colour is pretty blah and there is neither the detail of suiting fabrics or texture of cords or the texture organic destruction art of denim.
143 is right: mens clothign is all basically on teh same post-military/working clohtesh mold, and the goodness comes from fit and details. Women's clothing is more consciously decorative. The greater options and greater focus put on it are a positive feedback loop, i'd guess.
141: The problem isn't that. It's that when X is in, *all you can find* is X. So unless you've spent a fair bit of money in past seasons on well-made, long-lasting clothes in a style that suits you, and you don't gain or lose weight, you have to buy clothes that don't flatter you.
I don't really think people say things like "OMG, she's wearing STRAIGHT LEG JEANS! onlyskinny jeans can be worn this year!" straw-fashionistas, maybe.
Ehhhhh. No, no one comes up to you on the street and makes comments about the style. They might be thinking 'god, why does she leave the house like that?'
People do make judgments about what a person wears, and some of those judgments are not unrelated to 'professionalism', 'takes herself seriously', or 'seems to be our kind of people' or 'presents a good image.'
Yes on suits being flattering.
The thing that makes men's clothes easier to make flattering than women's is that the male ideal is big, and the female ideal is teeny. So a wispy guy puts on a suit jacket and is shaped like an athlete, and a fat guy puts on a suit jacket and is shaped like at least a football player -- there's more room to reshape someone if you're trying to look big and muscular.
Making someone with my build -- broad shoulders, big ribcage, generally solid -- look like a delicate fairy princess, on the other hand, requires highly complex optical illusions or simply doesn't work.
140: Word. Even on non-pudgy guys, khakis have a tendency to look huge.
You know what is the mystery unflattering outfit on men? The professional baseball uniform. Logically, those guys have to be fit -- they're getting paid to be superhuman. Yet somehow, they all look pudgy.
140, 150: Spend ten extra minutes buying clothing: five minutes to come to terms with the fact that your waist has expanded (or that you should be shopping the Young Men's section), and five finding the appropriate size.
The professional baseball uniform. Logically, those guys have to be fit
Actually, skill at baseball doesn't really require fitness. Baseball is full of pudgy bastards with a knack for hitting.
No, a lot of baseball players are very skilled, but kinda pudgy. It's not a sport that requires cardiovascular fitness.
149: It's depressing when wedding dresses go in the same sorts of styles you know you can't wear well.
The last time I bought khakis, it took well over five minutes finding enough pairs in the appropriate size. I really had to dig deep to find pairs that weren't huge.
The professional baseball uniform. Logically, those guys have to be fit
Still, they all look much more doughy than it makes any sense for professional athletes to be. Sure, bizarre reaction time and coordination is some of it, but you'd expect most of them to be as fit as they could get just for the extra edge. Some of it has to be the uniforms.
Sure, bizarre reaction time and coordination is some of it, but you'd expect most of them to be as fit as they could get just for the extra edge.
You really don't get baseball.
Not in the slightest. I still think they generally look better in street clothes, so I'm going to keep on blaming the uniforms.
Lots of heavyset baseball players.
Actually, this is the place to start. It's Maxim, though.
I wonder if it's just all the steroids making their faces look puffy.
So maybe it isn't the uniforms. Which makes sense -- I did always have trouble figuring out how the uniforms could be that much of a problem.
I wonder if it's just all the steroids making their faces look puffy.
It's because baseball is all about hitting, which doesn't require fitness.
That's why the only sports league worth following is the NBA, LB. If those guys get too fat, they fall out of the league. And they look great in suits.
I don't know thing one about baseball, but don't you get a certain advantage from sprinting speed? Stealing bases, fielding -- it's not like what you do in a game will get you fit, but it seems like the sort of thing that fit people would be likely to do better.
Note that 12 yards is the furthest anyone ever has to run in a baseball game, and even that's rare.
168: Basketball's the only sport I can watch with any degree of attention or interest, admittedly, but the players are disproportionate and weird looking mostly.
169: Not really. Situations where speed is an advantage do come up, but not often enough to make it worthwhile to focus on cardiovascular fitness rather than upper-body strength.
Speed is an advantage in baseball, but the ability to hit is more important by far, so you can become a major league player even if you're slow and pudgy.
168:
Those 18-buttons sausage suits basketball players wear are shocking. I wonder if some of it is scaling suit technology developed for the 5'4 1950s englishman to people 7 foot. They at least are presentable though.
Getting a bit pudgy helps maximise strength. Take a gander at powerlifters sometime.
It's not the khakis. I remember one summer in NY when half the gay men in lower manhattan were wearing khakis and white shirts, and looked so great it made you want to cry.
Getting a bit pudgy helps maximise strength. Take a gander at powerlifters sometime.
It doesn't help, it's just that there's no real advantage in powerlifting to maintaining low body fat unless it gets you into a lower weight class.
It's not the khakis. I remember one summer in NY when half the gay men in lower manhattan were wearing khakis and white shirts, and looked so great it made you want to cry.
But all of those guys were probably thin.
LB, see the beauty.
Do the Kwame, DanceBot.
178: So doesn't do it for me, and I'm all for tall. Just not that tall.
181: At least admit that he has a nice suit/tie combination going on.
Oh, there's nothing wrong with the outfit, although I would have put him in a darker color myself -- that's an awful lot of camel there.
180: Yeah, probably they were all weird and bony-looking when they were naked.
"It doesn't help, it's just that there's no real advantage in powerlifting to maintaining low body fat unless it gets you into a lower weight class."
Well, most of the time when you're overeating you can gain better, and you can't get stronger when cutting. If you're super carful you could probably thread the needle but its easy to mess up and more work.
It's a towering mountain of butterscotch pudding!
178:
hwat are you guys smoking. THe sleeves are too long, the jacket itself is too long, the shoulders are slightly to wide, and the small knot/shirt collar looks cramped up there. and yeah, the colors would look better on a medium skinned guy as light as they are.
189: You're insane. I'm not sure about the pattern of the material, but the color goes best with darker skin.
no, the colour that goes well on black guys is lighter than that one. More of a light khaki.
i'd like this suit colour. http://www.brooksbrothers.com/images/Catalog/ProductImages/thumbnails/121K_th.jpg
Obviously, depends on the individual skin tone. But the suit in 178 was an uncomfortably orange shade of camel for anything that was going to cover that much area.
191: Fuck. I think you might be right.
Yoyo has it. The guy needs to find a new tailor.
kinda pudgy. It's not a sport that requires cardiovascular fitness.
Cardiovascular fitness, last I checked, was about your circulatory system, not your body type.
I am continually wishing that there were some adorable female version of the sort of updated-tweedy-professor look, you know, that look that comes from sportscoats instead of suits or no jacket at all, or the nice sweater with a tie, and then the rumpled young professor boy hair. Maybe there is and I am just not made for it. Also perhaps it requires a degree of maintenance that I deem exhausting -- and therefore isn't *really* parallel. Hm.
It is, nonetheless, true that baseball is a sport in which cardiovascular fitness is less important than in others and that professional baseball players tend to be pudgier than other professional athletes.
198: True, but O's implication was clearly that the two had something to do with each other.
197: I think it's the frizzy hair or sloppy ponytail or cute small bunches of hair at the nape, combined with a rather loose-fitting cardigan (perhaps one with a tied belt and shawl collar) over either Katherine Hepburn-style wide trousers or an A-line skirt. Sensible, funky, or crazy wicked shoes according to individual preference and discretion.
Is your claim that they have nothing to do with each other?
It is my claim that correlation is not causation.
152: five [minutes] finding the appropriate size
Hah! In women's clothes, it takes half an hour just to figure out if this store's/brand's size 12 is the same as the other one's 10 or its 14. Sometimes I'm even an 8, which is ridiculous. And, hello, size zero?!
I would kill to be able to walk in someplace and say "I'm a 42 long*; whaddya got?"
(I know, I know, there are still variations, but it's so much easier with men's clothes.)
*True fact.
There's a reasonable case to be made that the important factor here is the importance of upper-body strength in baseball, which leads players of varying degrees of pudginess who have that strength to choose baseball over other sports that privilege other athletic abilities that are less compatible with pudginess. The greater pudginess of baseball players would then be epiphenomenal. I'm not quite sure I buy this argument, but it's reasonable.
Eventually some store will hit on the brilliant idea of having its size 10 not be the same as its own size 10. Size-labels would be distributed not based on the actual size of the garment, but some other method, or possibly none at all.
205 has already happened. I own same-brand clothes from different years, in different sizes, that fit me the same; and same-brand clothes from different years in the same size, that fit me differently. SO annoying.
But are there any same-brand clothes in the (same, different) size from the same year that fit you (differently, the same)?
207: Usually it's over multiple years and/or different styles. Cut matters a lot.
Cardiovascular fitness, last I checked, was about your circulatory system, not your body type.
Is this a prelude to a "you can be fit and 'fat'" argument? Red herring, B. The point is, in sports in which excellent cardiovascular fitness confers a significant advantage on the competitors, they ain't pudgy.
There's a reasonable case to be made that the important factor here is the importance of upper-body strength in baseball, which leads players of varying degrees of pudginess who have that strength to choose baseball over other sports that privilege other athletic abilities that are less compatible with pudginess.
Strength only helps someone who can hit, hit the ball farther. Perhaps better their bat speed as well. Not a requirement though.
Hitting that ball is the most difficult talk in a pro sport, and very few people can do it well. Baseball also pays as well or better than other pro sports, and the careers can be longer as there's not the injury factor like there is in football. And it's just plain old more pleasant. I'll take a couple hours of batting practice over a football practice any day.
Coordination, then. The point is, it's something for which pudginess is not a disadvantage.
Strength definatly helps in baseball. Hitting homers can make up for a lower batting average.
Hitting that ball is the most difficult talk in a pro sport, and very few people can do it well.
People always say this like it's supposed to prove something. You know what seems harder? Cutting your own eyeball with a razor. That doesn't make performance art a sport, and certainly not some sort of king of sports.
Cutting your own eyeball with a razor doesn't sound very hard to me.
Now, wanting to do so, on the other hand...
Calm down there SCMT. It just means that that particular ability means you can earn a shitload of money for many years without having to put in the kind of cardio training like you would if you were in the NBA or a running back or something.
Strength definatly helps in baseball. Hitting homers can make up for a lower batting average.
Guys hitting a lot of homers aren't always leading the league for their average, but they're still often batting mid to high .200's or higher.
207: I actually had that experience shopping for men's pants last year. Tried on about five different pairs all purporting to be exactly the same; two fit just fine, the other three were all over the map.
209: No, it *is* the argument.
That said, I'd probably agree with you just offhand, although I don't know that, say, football players *aren't* fit in the circulatory sense. But even in agreement, I'd point out that the probable reason for the not-pudgy/cardio correlation is that the kind of sports that require awsesome cardio conditioning burn a hell of a lot of calories, which would make it damn hard to eat enough to put on fat. That is, it's your implied claim that the cardiovascular fitness is the *cause* of the non-pudginess that's the red herring.
Would you all please return to the topic of discussing naked college students?
I bought a suit today! It doesn't look half bad on me, either. Black, which was not what I was intending when I set out, but there you have it.
