Why do people care so much about apparence?

[2D8HP]

Also, why are people still using real ties? One would think that clip-ons or some derivative thereof would have supplanted them by now...

The metal clip against your skin is unpleasant.

I have a longer post in mind about how so much of dress is based on signaling tribal/class affiliation, but for this post I'll just repat that for me men's so-called "formel" wear is more comfortable than most "casual" clothes.

Lighter and natural materials that feel better against the skin, more sizes, what's not to like?

"Casual" clothes are made of plastic that they put holes in (those stupid hateful football jersey's"), and knee shorts?

And "Polo" shirts are horrible to wear!
Why do I want a hot thick layer on my torso, but leave my arms bare so they can be sunburned?

The Bedouin don't go all "John Carter", what's with the cut off polyester crap?!

When I wear thick denim or leather work clothes I know it's because it's more durable, and I'm less likely to get burned when I'm welding, but " "leisure clothes"?
Why are we coerced into wearing that crap!.

Except that classmates and co-workers give me grief, I'd rather wear long sleeve dress shirts and full pants.

I hate all the pro "casual" peer pressure.

And I don't buy "You look like a banker".

I've seen bankers, and they wear those horrible polo shirts!

Women on the other hand are a different story. While the lady lawyers at my job-site now wear trousers as often as dresses (unlike in years past), they still wear shoes that look like torture devices for court.

Men's dress shoes are less comfortable than say sandals, but women's? They just look much more painful.

Why do they still submit to that?

[Delicious Taffy]

And "Polo" shirts are horrible to wear!
Why do I want a hot thick layer on my torso, but leave my arms bare so they can be sunburned?

Polo shirts are the worst. They make me look like a friggin' hillbilly, and they're horribly uncomfortable. If you can point me to a polo that doesn't feel like dry gauze, I'll... Well, I still won't wear it, due to the aforementioned bumpkin-like appearance.

[Knaight]

I have a longer post in mind about how so much of dress is based on signaling tribal/class affiliation, but for this post I'll just repat that for me men's so-called "formel" wear is more comfortable than most "casual" clothes.

Lighter and natural materials that feel better against the skin, more sizes, what's not to like?

"Casual" clothes are made of plastic that they put holes in (those stupid hateful football jersey's"), and knee shorts?

Slacks and khakis are both casual pants, if you don't like denim (and you're not the only one, it hangs out on my hated fabric list right by burlap, corduroy, and velvet, and unlike those three it shows up in normal clothing often) they're hardly formal wear. Football jerseys and knee shorts are hardly the full extent of men's casual clothes; there's a lot of variety there that gets winnowed down dramatically as stuff gets more formal.

[factotum]

"Casual" clothes are made of plastic that they put holes in (those stupid hateful football jersey's"), and knee shorts?

And "Polo" shirts are horrible to wear!

Casual clothes can be made from cotton just as much as polyester--I make it a habit of only buying pure cotton outfits. As for polo shirts, you can actually get long-sleeved versions of them; also, if I'm wearing a regular shirt and it's a hot day I'll roll the sleeves up anyway, because I find it cooler that way. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[Aedilred]

Not to mention the safety factor--much like a cape, a real tie is a fashionable death trap. Better to use something easily detachable, it could save your life.*

*Source: The Incredibles

In jobs where this is likely to be a factor (e.g. security guarding) any ties worn are generally clip-on for that reason.

As to why clip-on ties haven't supplanted normal ties completely, same reasons that velcro hasn't entirely replaced buttons, shoelaces and zips.

[Jotunheim]

Why people care so much about appearance?

I really hoped this would improve as I grew older but... Nope not a change, still feels like high school.

I have a co-worker who is extremely vain and people for some reason really love him for that.

He is a fitness freak who is always bragging about going to the gym and lifting a certain amount of weights, and people actually fall for it.

Any humors thing he says is treated as pure gold comedy by my peers.

Why does anything humors you say sounds funny when you are hot?

People said that the future would belong to the nerdy and tech-savvy.

People lied to me.

...Yeah, no. Let's break this down. Truth-time.

The world doesn't owe you jack, and you don't get to hold it against other people that they take care of themselves.

The fact that you feel that you have the right to refer to -anyone- as a "freak" for what they happen to do with their free time speaks volumes about entitlement. Working out is good for you. The end. Good on your co-worker for doing that, and good on him for gettng some social capital from the time he's put in.

You're not owed anything. You have the inherent worth that all humans have, and everything else is what you make of it, and what you have to offer to people, and, honestly, if that's being pissy that the world isn't catering specifically to your particular brand of entited manbaby, it's not surprising that it isn't working out for you.

Yes, looks matter. They're a form of capital. Some people have easier access to them than others, but if someone told you that you'd be growing up into a world where you wouldn't have to try, I'm very sorry, but you were lied to.

[Aliquid]

Also, why are people still using real ties? One would think that clip-ons or some derivative thereof would have supplanted them by now. Given that they are purely ornamental it follows that the part hidden by the collar can be safely dispensed with.

And THIS mindset is exactly why geeks rarely dress fashionably. We think of everything in a practical way. Fashion isn't about what is practical or functional.

Think of pocket protectors. In the days that pens leaked, these were highly practical. You were labeled a geek if you wore one (or whatever the term was in those days). "Fanny packs", clipping your cell phone to your belt... back in the 50's wearing glasses was geeky to the point that many youth would rather be half blind than wear them (contacts didn't exist yet)

[2D8HP]

And THIS mindset is exactly why geeks rarely dress fashionably. We think of everything in a practical way. Fashion isn't about what is practical or functional....

In the 1970's, you'd get labelled a "nerd", if you were seen using both armstraps of your backpack at school, and I often had seemingly well meaning people tell me this.

"But that's too much weight on one side", I'd complain, without understanding that was precisely the point!

You only used one strap to show:

You weren't carrying much.

You didn't care about losing any of your schoolbooks..

You're too lazy to put the other arm through ("It's cas man")

Otherwise, you'd be "Harshing the mellow".

[Bohandas]

Yes, looks matter. They're a form of capital.

And like money and gold their value is a shared illusion

[Aedilred]

And like money and gold their value is a shared illusion

I think we've explained why that's not entirely true. Good looks tend to reflect better health, which is pretty much inarguably a positive quality. That doesn't mean that everyone who is healthy is attractive, but most people who are attractive are at least reasonably healthy.

As for presentability and other aspects of appearance that can be controlled (e.g. hygiene) then they reflect a level of giving a toss about your fellow man, which is also a positive quality.

On a purely superficial level, sexual attraction might may be somewhat arbitrary but it's nevertheless a biological instinct, rather than a social illusion we've all agreed to collude in.

The train doesn't stop until it reaches its destination, whether you want to get off or not. I think that some people in this thread (and geekdom and indeed the world more generally) could do with remembering that. Hey look! There's even a relevant OOTS strip!

[An Enemy Spy]

They probably don't like you because you think of them as superficial idiots being suckered in by a vain fitness freak with no substance. A good thing to keep in mind is that if you think everyone else is a jerk, then maybe the real jerk is you.

The thing about people is that they are never(or at least mostly, I don't have a window into every mind on Earth to verify) two dimensional. Every single person is an entire world of their own and one you'll never truly understand even if you know that person well. When you see this guy, you see a vapid and shallow person because what, he enjoys things you've decided are beneath your level of intellect? Well guess what, this guy also has an opinion of you. I wonder what he sees when he looks at you?

[Bohandas]

On a purely superficial level, sexual attraction might may be somewhat arbitrary but it's nevertheless a biological instinct, rather than a social illusion we've all agreed to collude in.

Whether it's natural or not doesn't make its value any more or less real. It's applicable to one area (and even there the specifics aren't inherent; they are the result of many evolutionary and societal coincidences), but outside of that area it has no legitimate applicability at all.

Furthermore, if sexual attraction is where it's meaning lies, then it ought not to be tolerated in any place where it wouldn't be appropriate to be picking up chicks (or guys or whatever).

As to why clip-on ties haven't supplanted normal ties completely, same reasons that velcro hasn't entirely replaced buttons, shoelaces and zips.

They wear out faster and are harder to replace when they do?

In seriousness though, in the case of ties it can't even be simple narcissism because unless you turn your collar up nobody is going to see that there isn't more tie extending under it unless they're really actively looking for clip-on ties and are all up in your business really close

I have a longer post in mind about how so much of dress is based on signaling tribal/class affiliation, but for this post I'll just repat that for me men's so-called "formel" wear is more comfortable than most "casual" clothes.

I'll agree that I too have encountered comfortable formal wear, but generally that was all bespoke stuff which carried it's own special indirect discomfort in that I had to be extra super cautious not to tear it or get it dirty or anything like that because it's super expensive and also difficult to wash

I think we've explained why that's not entirely true. Good looks tend to reflect better health, which is pretty much inarguably a positive quality. That doesn't mean that everyone who is healthy is attractive, but most people who are attractive are at least reasonably healthy.

Or at least free of the common ailmemts of the day. In ancient times when most people were malnourished plebs and peasants it was attractive to be fat. Then first world civilization happened and everyone got dangerously obese and it became fashionable to be anorexic. And while neither of those are really super in anymore they 're both health related attractiveness standards that weren't really super healthy

[Aedilred]

I think the "in ye olden days people thought it was attractive to be fat lol how dumb were they" thing is overstated. I'm not aware of a time in history when it's been considered attractive for men to be overweight. For men to be big was good, but that's because that was equated with strength. When larger men went to seed and became overweight, contemporaries noted it with disapproval. Even during the later Georgian era, which was pretty much "peak decadence" for Western upper-class society (until perhaps right now), public figures were roundly mocked for being fat (George who became IV being the most obvious example).

As for women, it was important to look well-fed, and having a full figure (i.e. large bosoms and wide hips) was considered attractive (in real life, as opposed to fashion shows, it generally still is*). But, again, that whole period (generally the early modern era) when people like to claim "fat was attractive" was also a period when women were strapped into corsets to vanish their waists to nothing, even when pregnant. I was in the National Portrait Gallery a couple of weeks ago and all the women are painted with narrow waists, and often clothes which exaggerate the narrowness of their waistline.

Here's Nell Gwyn (with her clothes on, but uncorseted), sex symbol of the Restoration era:


Going back further, medieval depictions generally show women as pretty slender, unless they are supposed to be "matronly". Here's Joanna of Sicily, considered one of the most beautiful queens of the age:


What a heffalump! This was still in an era of strongly idealised portraiture, so it may not bear any resemblance to what she actually looked like. But that's what an attractive woman was supposed to look like - a figure that is in no way overweight and would still match our current standards of beauty.

Here's Theodora from about 800 years earlier, at the other end of the Middle Ages:

The cloak doesn't help judge her figure, but the narrow face suggests that she's not noticeably fat at least.

And back into antiquity the story is much the same. Here's the Venus de Milo (censored for fear that the sight of bimillenniary stone bosoms will cause uncontrollable excesses of ardour in the forum readership):

She may not be Kate Moss, but nobody could call her "fat". What's interesting about classical depictions of women tends not to be that they're fatter than their modern model counterparts but that their figures aren't very feminine: it seems the ideal for feminine beauty was to look like a man with breasts, if anything. And depictions of men from the period almost invariably show them as lean and fit-looking.

I've never specifically seen this idea debunked, but I have to wonder if it's one of those popular-history "facts" that was invented at some point in the Whig history era and has been taken as read ever since, like that prior to Columbus everyone thought the world was flat, or that full plate armour was too heavy to move about in.

*Wide hips are less fashionable than they were, but large bosoms are still in. Both are good signals of fertility and ability to bear children.

Furthermore, if sexual attraction is where it's meaning lies, then it ought not to be tolerated in any place where it wouldn't be appropriate to be picking up chicks (or guys or whatever).

Yeah, good luck with that...

[veti]

Casual clothes can be made from cotton just as much as polyester--I make it a habit of only buying pure cotton outfits. As for polo shirts, you can actually get long-sleeved versions of them; also, if I'm wearing a regular shirt and it's a hot day I'll roll the sleeves up anyway, because I find it cooler that way. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

This, exactly. Material is independent of style. You can get nylon or polyester shirts - or you can wear natural fibres, in just about any shape, including polo shirts. I have cotton polo shirts and rugby shirts, as well as formal shirts.

(Wool, linen and silk are also acceptable, although linen not so good for shirts.)

I've also got some t-shirts (mostly "gifted" by my employer) made of artificial fabrics, including state-of-the-art "breathable" sportswear stuff. They are, without exception, horrible to wear. The only time I use them is when everything else in my wardrobe is dirty.

[Liquor Box]

I think the "in ye olden days people thought it was attractive to be fat lol how dumb were they" thing is overstated. I'm not aware of a time in history when it's been considered attractive for men to be overweight. For men to be big was good, but that's because that was equated with strength. When larger men went to seed and became overweight, contemporaries noted it with disapproval. Even during the later Georgian era, which was pretty much "peak decadence" for Western upper-class society (until perhaps right now), public figures were roundly mocked for being fat (George who became IV being the most obvious example).

As for women, it was important to look well-fed, and having a full figure (i.e. large bosoms and wide hips) was considered attractive (in real life, as opposed to fashion shows, it generally still is*). But, again, that whole period (generally the early modern era) when people like to claim "fat was attractive" was also a period when women were strapped into corsets to vanish their waists to nothing, even when pregnant. I was in the National Portrait Gallery a couple of weeks ago and all the women are painted with narrow waists, and often clothes which exaggerate the narrowness of their waistline.

Here's Nell Gwyn (with her clothes on, but uncorseted), sex symbol of the Restoration era:


Going back further, medieval depictions generally show women as pretty slender, unless they are supposed to be "matronly". Here's Joanna of Sicily, considered one of the most beautiful queens of the age:


What a heffalump! This was still in an era of strongly idealised portraiture, so it may not bear any resemblance to what she actually looked like. But that's what an attractive woman was supposed to look like - a figure that is in no way overweight and would still match our current standards of beauty.

Here's Theodora from about 800 years earlier, at the other end of the Middle Ages:

The cloak doesn't help judge her figure, but the narrow face suggests that she's not noticeably fat at least.

And back into antiquity the story is much the same. Here's the Venus de Milo (censored for fear that the sight of bimillenniary stone bosoms will cause uncontrollable excesses of ardour in the forum readership):

She may not be Kate Moss, but nobody could call her "fat". What's interesting about classical depictions of women tends not to be that they're fatter than their modern model counterparts but that their figures aren't very feminine: it seems the ideal for feminine beauty was to look like a man with breasts, if anything. And depictions of men from the period almost invariably show them as lean and fit-looking.

I've never specifically seen this idea debunked, but I have to wonder if it's one of those popular-history "facts" that was invented at some point in the Whig history era and has been taken as read ever since, like that prior to Columbus everyone thought the world was flat, or that full plate armour was too heavy to move about in.

*Wide hips are less fashionable than they were, but large bosoms are still in. Both are good signals of fertility and ability to bear children.

Yeah, good luck with that...

I think you may have had to have gone back even further:

[factotum]

Isn't a lot of the "fat = attractive in the past" stuff based on the artwork of Reubens, who *did* like to paint ladies of a slightly larger size? It's entirely probable that was his own personal preference rather than a general trend of his time, of course.

[Xyril]

Isn't a lot of the "fat = attractive in the past" stuff based on the artwork of Reubens, who *did* like to paint ladies of a slightly larger size?

No. Similarly, our belief that soccer is a popular world-wide sport isn't solely based on the fact that this famous "Pele" guy was really into it.

It's entirely probable that was his own personal preference rather than a general trend of his time, of course.

It's entirely probably only if you assume that your first statement is true and ignore the existence of all other contemporaneous evidence.

[Aedilred]

No. Similarly, our belief that soccer is a popular world-wide sport isn't solely based on the fact that this famous "Pele" guy was really into it.

It's entirely probably only if you assume that your first statement is true and ignore the existence of all other contemporaneous evidence.

Care to elaborate, then?

I'd be interested to know what the evidence actually is. (Genuinely; that's not sarcasm).

[factotum]

Yeah, I'm a bit unclear myself--are you saying that Reubens didn't paint larger women, or that he did and that *isn't* the reason people often believe that larger women were considered more beautiful in the past? Or is there some other option I'm missing?

[Red Fel]

Yeah, I'm a bit unclear myself--are you saying that Reubens didn't paint larger women, or that he did and that *isn't* the reason people often believe that larger women were considered more beautiful in the past? Or is there some other option I'm missing?

I think Xyril is saying that the fact that one person did something (e.g. Reubens painted large women, Pele played football/soccer) does not actually demonstrate that said something was any kind of cultural trend or phenomenon, whether it was or wasn't. If one man in the mountains of Tibet in the 1300s became totally fanatical about playing the ukulele, that does not mean that the ukulele was necessarily a thing in the 1300s. This is true irrespective of whether the ukulele actually was a thing or not; the ukulele's status as a thing is not causally dependent upon the practices of a lone mountain hermit.

[Strigon]

[QUOTE=Liquor Box;22040940]I think you may have had to have gone back even further:

AFAIK, there's not a whole lot of context surrounding that find. As best we can tell, it's a fertility symbol, yes? But that doesn't necessarily translate to attractiveness, especially when taken to that extreme.

[Aedilred]

I think Xyril is saying that the fact that one person did something (e.g. Reubens painted large women, Pele played football/soccer) does not actually demonstrate that said something was any kind of cultural trend or phenomenon, whether it was or wasn't. If one man in the mountains of Tibet in the 1300s became totally fanatical about playing the ukulele, that does not mean that the ukulele was necessarily a thing in the 1300s. This is true irrespective of whether the ukulele actually was a thing or not; the ukulele's status as a thing is not causally dependent upon the practices of a lone mountain hermit.

His statement seems to imply pretty heavily that there's actually a lot of evidence for this belief which we haven't taken into account. I'm just curious to know what it is.

[factotum]

I think Xyril is saying that the fact that one person did something (e.g. Reubens painted large women, Pele played football/soccer) does not actually demonstrate that said something was any kind of cultural trend or phenomenon, whether it was or wasn't.

Um, well, isn't that exactly what I said? I was saying that the impression *today* of large women being attractive back in the day comes from Reubens portraits, not that there was any sort of cultural trend at the time to that effect--in fact, I even said that maybe Reubens just liked the larger lady.

[Scarlet Knight]

I think the "in ye olden days people thought it was attractive to be fat lol how dumb were they" thing is overstated...

I've never specifically seen this idea debunked, but I have to wonder if it's one of those popular-history "facts" that was invented at some point in the Whig history era and has been taken as read ever since, like that prior to Columbus everyone thought the world was flat, or that full plate armour was too heavy to move about in.
...

Thanks for these pictures, Aedilred...the Venus di Milo made me think "Yeah, who besides Reubens painted/ sculpted big women"?

At first I thought Botticelli, but his women, especially his Birth of Venus were pretty thin. So I thought Titian, and while his women aren't thin they'd still be the hottest women at the office.

I was suprised that I found Michaelangelo to have many realistically round women, especially in the Sistine Chapel. There, his thin women (Dawn and Night) are still thick, and his normal women often have belly rolls (eg Eve) . I think this was on purpose to be realistic since the Blessed Mother in La Pieta was thin as an ideal.

In the 1970's, ...

You only used one strap to show:

You weren't carrying much.

You didn't care about losing any of your schoolbooks..

You're too lazy to put the other arm through ("It's cas man")

Otherwise, you'd be "Harshing the mellow".

You forgot "to show that you were strong enough that you didn't care about the weight".

[thamolas]

And THIS mindset is exactly why geeks rarely dress fashionably. We think of everything in a practical way. Fashion isn't about what is practical or functional.

Looking like a slob is highly impractical.

[Red Fel]

And THIS mindset is exactly why geeks rarely dress fashionably. We think of everything in a practical way. Fashion isn't about what is practical or functional.

Somebody should have told this to Coco Chanel. I mean, she tried to break into fashion by making clothing that was practical and comfortable, like her tweed suit and little black dress. This complete idiot actually had the nerve to say that "Luxury must be comfortable," which is clearly absurd. Somebody should have told her that she would never get far with fashion ideas designed around practicality, ease of movement, and comfort.

I suppose that's why she never made it in the fashion industry.

[Aliquid]

Somebody should have told this to Coco Chanel. I mean, she tried to break into fashion by making clothing that was practical and comfortable, like her tweed suit and little black dress. This complete idiot actually had the nerve to say that "Luxury must be comfortable," which is clearly absurd. Somebody should have told her that she would never get far with fashion ideas designed around practicality, ease of movement, and comfort.

I suppose that's why she never made it in the fashion industry.

There is a big difference between a charismatic costume designer/actress and your average geek on the street.

If we decide to wear socks with sandals because it is comfortable, we will be looked down upon. If Ben Affleck decided to wear socks with sandals... it might become a fashionable thing to do.

[Mikemical]

I think you may have had to have gone back even further:

Spoiler: put pictures in spoilers plz

Show

Here's the thing. Fertility idols such as the one you posted are meant to represent pregnant women. Not morbidly obese women. And there is a reason for that. You want me to go fetch the story about the obese woman who had a miscarriage and didn't notice she was pregnant because she was "big boned"? Being fat isn't healthy, and while there are people out there who would find chub attractive, there's also people who find the idea of contracting AIDS/HIV hot.

And THIS mindset is exactly why geeks rarely dress fashionably. We think of everything in a practical way. Fashion isn't about what is practical or functional.

It also takes quite some effort to pull off these looks:

Spoiler: Cringe Warning

Show

The simple truth is, some people have a natural sense for style, know how to match their clothes so they're both fashionable and comfortable. Some people don't. I peronally cheat and just follow a simple couple color rules:

-Your belt and your shoes should always be of matching colors. If not wearing a belt, your shoes should be a matching color with your shirt.

-Your pants shouldn't be brighter than your shirt. Ever.

-Hoodies/sweaters are excempt of any color matching rules because being fashionable < being cold.

[Shamash]

Here's the thing. Fertility idols such as the one you posted are meant to represent pregnant women.

Nope, they are supposed to have exaggerated sexual characteristic and bodies.

Spoiler: Exemples, NSFW

Show

Another exemple: LINK Also not safe for work.

[Red Fel]

There is a big difference between a charismatic costume designer/actress and your average geek on the street.

If we decide to wear socks with sandals because it is comfortable, we will be looked down upon. If Ben Affleck decided to wear socks with sandals... it might become a fashionable thing to do.

... Do you know who Coco Chanel was?

She was an attractive orphan girl who entertained a failed career at stage performance, became the mistress of a textile heir, and ultimately opened a hat store. She was pretty, yes, and smart, but I wouldn't call her a "charismatic costume designer/actress," at least not until she became an established couturière in her 30s. Costume design came after she was an established name, not before.

In any event, this argument gets away from the earlier point. You said that geeks rarely dress fashionably, because we care more about practicality and comfort. My counter-argument is that Chanel became a famous fashion designer in part because of her emphasis on practicality and comfort. Saying, "Yes, but it's different when she does it" is a facetious argument. The fact that geeks care more about practicality and comfort than about style or appearance - and tell that to any hardcore cosplayer if you want to get a laugh - does not mean that geeks must not be fashionable. Chanel's impact on the industry shows that it is possible to do both, comfort and style, practicality and appearance, if you care about it.

It's not that geeks aren't fashionable because they emphasize other things. It's that the geeks you describe aren't fashionable because they choose not to be.

Me? I'm snappy as literal hell. Lawful Evil has to represent, after all.