There might be some confusion between fashion and reality. You can never be to rich or too thin, but obese and broke is an extremely common combination. Sex may be waning under the stress of modern living, but that doesn't necessarily make it unfashionable.
You're under no obligation to continue this conversation, but no, you can't tell how much sex people have by the way they dress, that's absurd.
Frankly it's pretty objectifying to suggest the only reason people choose to wear skimpy clothes is to get laid, and the only reason they wear conservative clothes is to remain celibate. People often dress to please themselves.
You may be surprised to realize that you’re the one being superficial here in equating style with money. Dressing well does not require money - what it signals is a form of sophistication or good taste in the case of high fashion, or tidyness and well-being for casual clothing. Millions of people dress nicely from Primark/C&A alone, and even fashion students get going on tight budgets sourcing second hand items.
Much like keeping your hair looking good, trimming your nose hair and so on, these signals will never be completely ignored unless social norms for personal care change significantly - and that’s not happening without a significant cultural / economic / health shift.
The young people I've seen recently would've fit in at my school. We didn't dress all that provocatively either.
I don't think we should conflate how people choose to dress with whether or not they're having sex - Victorian fashion was more conservative than today, but they had plenty of sex. I think fashion just ebbs and flows, independent of our sex lives.
Your simple solution has a chicken and egg problem. Or at least according to the article linked to. The whole point of dressing fashionably is to get a girlfriend.
There is a healthy balance here that seems lost on a lot of people here.
There's not a binary distinction between fashion victim and enlightened minimalist.
Yes, reduce your purchases.
Yes, prefer high quality products.
Yes, reuse your clothes instead of throwing it away.
No, don't spent your life constantly worrying about what you need to repair before it falls apart.
No, don't put people through enduring the summer smell of your only t-shirt.
No, don't look awful because appearance matters on a basic level.
Above all, don't virtue signal so hard because it makes you look ignorant to people with more complicated lives.
I am fortunate in that I have a uniform budget from my job and unfortunate in that nice clothes are really a case of "polishing a turd" due to my unattractiveness, so I just coast by on what my job provides.
I don't own very many clothes at all. I don't understand fashion and I find it frustrating to find things that fit and are comfortable, so I keep the rare things I find acceptable around for a long time.
But let's get something straight: I rarely look good.
Fashion is something to be aware of, but there's nothing at all wrong with being unfashionable. You can dress for any purpose without adhering to fashion. An attractive girl might carefully select an outfit that is extremely flattering to her particular colors and body type, yet not be "in fashion" at all. And it'll work. If she isn't famous or popular she won't set any trends, but she'll look fantastic. People won't look at her and think "clueless" they'll think "nice outfit."
Fashion is for when you don't know how to dress to achieve what you want.
The article would be more convincing if the "well dressed" examples were well dressed. Well, and also if it was well written. There has been no era in which a cheap white blazer over an olive drab t-shirt looked good.
Unfortunately, reading fashion magazines doesn't really improve a person's style unless you already look like a fashion model. San Francisco is filled with programmers who wear expensive, trendy gear and they don't look much better than the hacker slobs because it doesn't really suit their body shape or personality. In fact, they look like posers who spent $50 on a too-small t-shirt and $200 on sneakers that look like aerobic trainers from a B-movie about the future.
Simple, clean clothes that suit your body shape are a better bet. Most guys would be doing themselves a favor by donating their wardrobe to goodwill and spending a few hundred dollars buying some fresh basics.
> One of the cardinal sins of fashion (at least for heterosexual men) is looking like you're trying too hard.
Yes but that's a case of sprezzatura: to stay in fashion (or create trends), you'll need to work hard. But you must make it appear completely natural and done without trying.
I think that you may have missed my point. This isn't about buying expensive clothes, or being one of those people who doesn't buy expensive clothes. I'm not making my decision in order to fit in. I try not to worry about it, because I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't make much sense to worry about it.
But it also serves as an advertisement for fitness, fitness in terms of energy and thought you can devote to staying in fashion.
Ahh, but not entirely. One of the cardinal sins of fashion (at least for heterosexual men) is looking like you're trying too hard. Spending too much time trying to look good (or, say, buying a subscription to GQ) is actually an indicator of low status since only low-status men need to expend effort on looking like they're not low-status -- this is what my favourite fashion site magnificentbastard.com calls "The Principle of Artful Dishevelment". You want to indicate that you have naturally exquisite taste (and plenty of money) but that you're not sufficiently status-conscious to spend an hour on your hair before leaving the house.
If the actually rich people are dressing down-to-earth, why would you dress fancily to appear rich? Surely you want to also dress down-to-earth so you appear like the rich people do.
The mannerisms matter much more than the clothing. Personal looks too, especially face, body shape and posture. Manner of speaking completes the picture.
You can pick up old money relatively easily even if they're in a frumpy grandma sweater, even from a distance.
...but I think this demonstrates my main problem about fashion: only the good looking can do this.
Not a single fat person in these pictures. I'm not saying that they must out of some sense of equality or some kind of obligation. Clothes are not made for fat people probably because they just don't look good in anything. I should just lose weight if I want to look fashionable.
I speak from personal experience. I'm quite overweight -- like most americans -- and nothing I wore had any affect on how well I looked. So i just gave up on fashion years ago.
i said good looking and good fitting. of course most people don't wear clothes that fit or look good. the person i replied to mentioned he looks 'sloppy' in t-shirt and jeans.
i'm pointing out the fact that you're guaranteed to look sloppy in t-shirt/jeans/sandles unless you buy the expensive stuff or are top 10% fit and attractive, and even then, there's no saving some really cheap stuff. those good looking 'casually dressed' people are spending real money to achieve that look.
You can be a slob dress and grooming-wise 80% of the time but know how to look good 20% of the time when it matters. That's the key, to be able to shift up a gear.
It can also be cheap to be fit, exercise gives you new thoughts, and doesn't take long. The downside of exercise is injury, over-exertion and poor form. Again, like clothes, you don't have to be fit all the time, you can ramp it up when you want to start giving off some pheromones with your new clothes.
Diet is crucial all the time. Here's the key: avoid all processed foods and stay away from trans-fats. Choose water.
reply