EPTMen's Fashion Thread - Page 328
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
| ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On February 27 2015 04:39 ZenithM wrote: In my opinion, we men are lucky in that male models are way closer to represent the average-looking man than female models are to represent the average-looking woman (I don't even think female runway models look that good tbh ;D). Don't get me wrong, male models are very far from average looking, of course, but they're not that far off that you can't get a realistic idea of whether you would like to wear this or that clothing item. I mean, as long as you're not super overweight, you'll probably find a leather jacket that looks decently good on you. But yeah, best would be to try them on, of course. well my favorite style/brand is currently joop but i am no where close to the physique of their models as they have wider shoulders and bigger chest muscles, which makes a decent difference in fit (most of their models wear european sizes of 50 or 52, which look like a family tent on me) http://joop.com/de/de/herren/casual/l/look-7-ca-men-14-4 | ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9491 Posts
On February 27 2015 06:28 puerk wrote: well my favorite style/brand is currently joop but i am no where close to the physique of their models as they have wider shoulders and bigger chest muscles, which makes a decent difference in fit (most of their models wear european sizes of 50 or 52, which look like a family tent on me) http://joop.com/de/de/herren/casual/l/look-7-ca-men-14-4 ya most of us aren't like the model that zulu posted a couple pages back | ||
|
Juliette
United States6003 Posts
On February 27 2015 05:18 ZenithM wrote: Yeah of course, price matters. But you can't see a difference between $30 and $300 jeans from like 15 meters away (well someone is probably going to say that you can ;D), that's what I mean by alternatives that are "similar looking". Imo "Normal" fashion looks should be able to be replicated at a "blurry smartphone photograph" or "15 meters away" level of precision with cheap items. I don't know, maybe my definition is not so much that of "normal" fashion sense (of course everybody by now has realized that this was a rhetorical question in the first place and that Juliette doesn't believe in the existence of such notion, but let me try anyway ;D) as it is one for "mainstream" fashion. As an other example, a double rider leather jacket is as "normal" as it goes, you can find plenty of faux-leather shit that looks similar at a long enough distance to a good leather jacket ;D hahah i acknowledge it exists. as in, there certainly is "normal" with certain context - what college students, professionals, etc wear. there's also "normal" as in your regular weekend clothes you see people in. but that doesnt mean it looks good and that doesnt mean its a fashion sense vs. clothes i wear because i need clothes which means to have a fashion sense in the first place implies an interest in your self-appearance and accepting what society calls "fashion" (or the industry of creating/advertising/buying clothing) in order to decide what to wear to maintain your self appearance. the niche you step into can't be normal because as you get more and more into it (people like us vs people who shop at HM and think thats fashion vs utilitarians) the "tier" below gets seen as less "fashion" and therefore not normal according to your definition which is where this steps in: On February 27 2015 05:42 ZenithM wrote: Yeah well, if you're buying clothes you're probably chasing a trend one way or another, it's not like buying something more expensive makes you avant-garde (the designer may be avant-garde, you aren't). I'm perfectly comfortable with the fact that my clothes don't reflect the full extent of my creativity ;D i agree. your "clothing niche" is something you got somewhere else most of the time, few people actually completely come into their own and the ones that do are lauded hardcore by the community. not that its a bad thing to follow into an already established niche (all rick everything) if thats what youre into. but avant-garde means to break free from the social conditioning of the world - so i agree. the designers do so by making clothes that are unlike it, and i guess the paradox is that by buying in and lotting yourself there you're allowing its incorporation into "society" (since youre a part of it) and the design loses its avant garde-ness. but then how, as a wearer of clothing, can you be avant garde? (I guess wear nothing/make your own shit) lol. anything less and you're just a consumer. ---- sorry if that made no sense im tired + been wanting to incorporate some of the ideas ive learned in class + politics of fashion class next semester | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
Nothing wrong with "only" being a fashion connoisseur though. On February 27 2015 07:32 CorsairHero wrote: ya most of us aren't like the model that zulu posted a couple pages back Yeah no doubt. My point was definitely about how we have an easy time compared to women. For example, I would bet that the BMI of male models is way closer to the average of men that the BMI of female models is close to average of women. | ||
|
phosej
173 Posts
The main guys who post in this thread expose themselves regularly to relatively niche internet fashion forums (sf/sufu/sz, etc). What's "normal" for them is definitely not "normal" for the average male who is not intensely interested in clothes and thus by default the extent of their exposure consists of the mainstream media, mall-tier stores and advertisements, etc. . So it's no surprise that the average guy would be shocked when suddenly exposed to clothes that are far outside of their regular frame of reference | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On February 27 2015 08:57 phosej wrote: What's "normal" to someone can only be defined with respect to what they're regularly exposed to The main guys who post in this thread expose themselves regularly to relatively niche internet fashion forums (sf/sufu/sz, etc). What's "normal" for them is definitely not "normal" for the average male who is not intensely interested in clothes and thus by default the extent of their exposure consists of the mainstream media, mall-tier stores and advertisements, etc. . So it's no surprise that the average guy would be shocked when suddenly exposed to clothes that are far outside of their regular frame of reference Definitely, and I try not to think about normal/abnormal instead of just good/bad within context. That colorblock coat is really not that weird though like lol. I think there used to be a variety of posters in this thread until I hirsched it. Now all the new ones just restart the same basic conversations. I'll try to... write better instead of just spamming buy links or short thoughts so this thread can appear more welcoming. On male models, their types vary with the aesthetics of brands. Heritage webshops/lookbooks don't care about body types too much and will cast people with full beards. Runway labels use the standard 6ft2,size 48 types who are probably rarer in the general male population as female model body types are in theirs. It's usually very hard to be that thin when you're that tall unless due to genetics or physical activity that does not build muscle. Avant-garde/dark brands will use the same body type as runway models, but pick ones with less wholesome faces. If we're talking about body image though, then guys definitely have it better, simply because male clothing of all types are generally, more generously cut, whereas it's very hard to hide an overweight or less-than-ideal body shape in anything remotely fashionable for women. And of course, fast fashion, prep, classic menswear brands will use models with healthier BMIs, but a lot of their cuts are awful for all body types. Lastly, I doubt there's anything like an "avant-garde" dresser among folks who are not in fashion. The people on SZ who only shop at Darklands Berlin are the farthest from avant-garde, in the cultural/artistic sense of the word, they are in fact the most conservative group in all internet fashion, which as I've mentioned before, is hilariously ironic and disgustingly hypocritical. | ||
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
I think the point about male models having more similar bodies to regular males is a good point about trying to distinguish whether a runway fit can look good on you. Men come in fewer shapes than women, and achieving a more desirable body (in this case, closer to male models) is often easier for us. Aside from being a XS/36/46/0, most runway looks fit my body type. Another important thing about style and fashion is appropriateness in terms of environment and personality. A lot of what we consider 'normal' depends on our surroundings—where we work/study, what we regularly do, where we go—and our lifestyle—hobbies, personality, etc. A student wearing a 3-piece suit to a laid back college campus looks just as ridiculous as someone wearing gothninja to a traditional wedding. A shy and reserved librarian will have difficulty pulling off a double rider just as a free spirited artist may look funny in stale business casual. That doesn't mean you can't go for a striking juxtaposition; but in terms of looking "normal", this makes a difference. tbh what person interested in fashion ever wants to be 'normal'? it's all about finding your personal style and evolving that style with the culture of dress of your times. normality is neither positive nor negative. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
A principle such as dressing for context is one of the less arbitrary guidelines, but in the end, still arbitrary. However everyone needs these rules/guidelines because there is just too much clothes and too many ways of dressing. One value I stand by is ease. I like to spend as little time as possible putting clothes on because it's a practical concern. That means boots with zips, very little layering, etc. Such a rule also narrows down the choices available and makes it easier for me to make judgments as a consumer. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
male standard size 48 has a chest size of about 95 cm lookbook models of european brands i looked at have models with sizes 50-52, so chests over 100cm and waists still in the 80s low 90s thats a lot of muscle to get that taper, and fit: http://joop.com/de/de/herrenmode/polo-shirts/polo-shirt-beeke-in-marine/p/15001459-1500050-120 the amount of work a man has to do to get that physique is not trivial on the other hand women lookbook models for the same brands wear sizes 34 - 36 where being thin is enough for a good fit so i don't get how it is supposedly easier to build muscle mass for years and have low bodyfat, than to just being thin. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On February 27 2015 14:49 puerk wrote: I am not quite sure where that disconnect in our opinions comes from so i will try to go through my reasoning step by step: male standard size 48 has a chest size of about 95 cm lookbook models of european brands i looked at have models with sizes 50-52, so chests over 100cm and waists still in the 80s low 90s thats a lot of muscle to get that taper, and fit: http://joop.com/de/de/herrenmode/polo-shirts/polo-shirt-beeke-in-marine/p/15001459-1500050-120 the amount of work a man has to do to get that physique is not trivial on the other hand women lookbook models for the same brands wear sizes 34 - 36 where being thin is enough for a good fit so i don't get how it is supposedly easier to build muscle mass for years and have low bodyfat, than to just being thin. It's not just that. Female model height average is also further from female height average than the same thing for male models. I mean, female minimum height is like, what, 15 cm heigher than female average? Whereas for male, it's 7-10 cm tops. That's a huge difference. | ||
|
Craze
United States561 Posts
| ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On February 27 2015 15:30 zulu_nation8 wrote: The overwhelming majority of male models are size M=48EU, there are very very rarely 50-52 models, 52 almost never unless for niche styles. Show me where that site says the model is a 50-52, I google translated but couldn't find sizing information. I am sorry i can't find it anymore, i thought i remembered this site having that information in the last season. So it is possible he is wearing something smaller. according to his agency he has size 98, 81cm waist and 101cm chest measurements, which are about what i said... http://www.kultmodelagency.com/sedcard/174/Leon Nieuwoudt I guess it comes down to brand and season of the particular look, that they went with a "plus size" model  @craze what else are you planning to wear over such a dress shirt? | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
So I bleached it, Guess I'll find out what it really looks like once it dries | ||
|
phosej
173 Posts
On February 27 2015 16:13 Craze wrote: Basic question: French cuffs without a suit jacket. Yes? No? No | ||
|
Juliette
United States6003 Posts
On February 27 2015 16:13 Craze wrote: So my ability to dress myself is not even at the basic level yet. Basic question: French cuffs without a suit jacket. Yes? No? Think about the function! What are french cuffs for? They're fancier than regular cuffs - so it's mostly a flaunting thing. Why flaunt an expensive shirt without the rest of the suit that the shirt is for? Alternatively aesthetic function. You don't want people looking at your wrists the whole time (where the cuff links are), and rolling them up loses the need for cuffs. | ||
|
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21245 Posts
But then I'd need fancy ass suits too blargh. IDK I never really understood all the people who say fashion doesn't have to be expensive, seems plenty expensive to me. | ||
|
Juliette
United States6003 Posts
So I say don't bother they're annoying to wear and tbh I don't think they look that good | ||
| ||
