EPTOn Clothing - Page 2
| Blogs > thedeadhaji |
|
Wrongspeedy
United States1655 Posts
| ||
|
nohbrows
United States653 Posts
But as I get older, I found that there is some enjoyment to dressing nice. But for different reasons other than trying to "fit in." Perhaps it is just my friends, or maybe even where I live, but kids around here, everyone from the socially awkward nerd to the popular jock who plays football, place a value on "looking sharp," so to speak. I think there is some value in "looking sharp," and not "dressing like shit." It's not to say we should judge people based on how they dressed, but I think dressing nice is something that is aesthetically pleasing to both yourself and others, in the similar vein of having a nice hair cut, being clean shaven (or a sexy looking facial hair). And I don't think there is anything wrong with being aesthetically pleasing. I think the real issue here then lies in intentions rather than perceptions (both yourself's and society's). For example: Do you dress nice simply to impress others? Or to "fit in?" Do you dress in expensive clothing because you are scared of society's rejection? Or do you dress nice because you like doing so, and you value looking nice? Dress nice for yourself. Dress like shit for yourself. I for one like dressing nice. Nothing feels better than showing up to church/wedding/formal social functions in a suit and tie. And the fashionable style where I go to school is that hip-hop/b-boy look. Jeans, shirt, hat, funky looking shoes. So dressing nice here around here doesn't take a whole lot of money. That may have skewed by perspective. I dunno. | ||
|
disco
Netherlands1667 Posts
On April 12 2012 07:34 JingleHell wrote: I kind of agree on this. He's the one who was suggesting that what I originally said meant "looking bad" and brought price into the mix. I just wear cheap clothes because it's what I like. I specifically avoided "looking bad", but apparently you assume it was implied. I also didn't bring price into the mix, I atleast didn't mean to, not in that way. I infact don't go out to buy expensive clothes, like I said, if the quality is the same but just the brand is different I will always go for the cheaper option. I just said I prefer proper clothes over the "1 size fits all" kind. Edit: Also guy above me basically made the point I wanted to make, but he probably explained it better. | ||
|
Doctorasul
Romania1145 Posts
Maybe someting similar applies to being unkempt or ungroomed in the USA. It's seen as a statement of personality, not as lack of hygiene, because how many in the USA haven't had access to running water, soap and a razer in the past 80 years? The "dirty" look has been freed and made available for use in expressing one's personality, so you see people going into expensive hair salons and asking for the scruffy look, spending hundreds of dollars on new clothes that look dusty and showing up to receive awards unshaven. Not with a proper beard, just unshaven. Armpit hair or leg hair is still taboo for women, but it seems like other than that, you can do whatever you want with your clothes and hair in the USA and everyone will still assume you showered in the past two days, since you probably did. Making some broad generalizations, the USA saw poverty last in the Great Depression, Western Europe immediately post WWII and Eastern Europe at the collapse of the Soviet Union. So you would expect affluent people in the USA to look unkempt compared to Western Europeans and wealthier East Europeans to look the sharpest of the three (from what I see in Eastern Europe the scruffy look only caught on in youngsters in affluent regions of big cities, if at all). I don't know what East Asia is up to. ![[image loading]](http://www.fashion-incubator.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/NYT_cartoon.jpg) | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On April 12 2012 16:56 disco wrote: I specifically avoided "looking bad", but apparently you assume it was implied. I also didn't bring price into the mix, I atleast didn't mean to, not in that way. I infact don't go out to buy expensive clothes, like I said, if the quality is the same but just the brand is different I will always go for the cheaper option. I just said I prefer proper clothes over the "1 size fits all" kind. Edit: Also guy above me basically made the point I wanted to make, but he probably explained it better. Re-read what you said, and make up your mind? But seriously, wouldn't everyone take "looking good" over being "the underdressed guy who couldn't give a fuck" (© JingleHell)? Your statement makes the two things (looking good) and confidently wearing casual clothes, mutually exclusive. If that wasn't your intent, no worries, but that IS what the language does, when used that way. Underdressed doesn't mean one size fits all, it means, roughly, wearing too casual of clothes for a venue. My clothes are anything BUT one size fits all. I'm incredibly picky about fit. | ||
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
[1] Actually, this particular combination might not have such undesired effects. On April 12 2012 01:58 zatic wrote: Pics of metro Haji please. Classified  I like to dress in fitting clothes. It's an unfortunate reality that they also tend to be expensive. I definitely don't dress to show wealth, and I find it very limited that that seems to be your only angle to clothing. I typically dress in jeans/khakis + polo/button down shirt, as I prefer a simple, clean look. But even if my primary purpose is to look good, I've realized that I can potentially send status/wealth messages that I would perhaps like to avoid. I haven't decided one way or another, and obviously there's no "right way" for this, but I do think it's important to consider the full message we send with our appearance, not just to ourselves, but to each subset of society we interact with. | ||
| ||
