Over at dappered.com's forum - called threads.com - a discussion on the worth and usage of the latest fashion bottoms, known as "joggers" (they're really sweatpants because, just by looking at them, they aren't remotely functional for actual jogging) some butt hurt posters in favor of them just couldn't take the archaic notion of criticism and judgment.
"LEAVE MY JOGGERS ALONE!"
There was probably two posts, in total, that outright rejected the joggers on the first page; the rest were just thoughts on "the history of sweatpants," but we can't have that, so poster "wheresbrando" deems it a "melt down" as the sheep follow in throwing the tiresome "conservative" and "insular" cards.
There were some non-brat like posts -
A forum is a place to discuss things - in this case people who have an interest in men's fashion, not just to gather around and play "you're my buddy!"
But the butt hurts wouldn't have it!
Childish name calling vs. condescending and arrogant "little less risk averse." Considering Miami is equally as casual in fashion - you won't see many suits or pencil skirts - as, say, L.A., joggers would be more prone to be worn. Wearing joggers in Miami or like cities wouldn't be considered a "risk" since many of the clothing is dictated by the weather and fashion culture (casual) : light, less fabric, comfortable. A fashion risk would be creating a work outfit around joggers if the work apparel is business casual.
"Bravery" in wearing joggers and being "less risk averse" when it comes to fashion ... In a city that's rather casually in wear to begin with - keep it up "useknifeonly." Don't ever take philosophy courses -- you'd be horrible at them.
That's what the forum is for, and that's what was being discussed, bud.
User "useknifeonly" is just miffed at these "conservative" fashion folks.
"It's those darn precedents that dictate you stuffy types! What a bunch of followers you are!"
Is there still hope?
Nah. Just more butt hurt.
"You don't know me, old man!" Considering "useknifeonly" wrote all that out, I'd think he is defending joggers even if he wouldn't wear one himself. The logic and debating skills is strong with this one.
But aesthetics and feel good.
Of course, there's the relieved exclamation of "YOU GET ME!" in such a discussion, as like-minded person swoops down upon the oppressed and misunderstood hero of expression and love; other exclamations are "Ugh," or "THIS!" generally used by the butt hurt.
All is not lost, not entirely, though.
When it comes to trends there is no logic or explanation needed, just feelings and warm sentiments of "like." Fair enough. No wonder most fashion trends, when looked at in retrospect, are both embarrassing and laughable.
The poster "ryn" mentions statistics. The "feelings" types tend to like numbers, they just use them when it's convenient. Remember, it's all about feelings and non-justification.
Considering Allen Edmunds is a considered a classic (you can say the shoe was a trend at first, that later turned into a staple in the men's fashion universe) and considering that overalls have their history similar to blue jeans, I consider that a poor comparison when one is defending the existence of joggers.
Wow, the horror of someone thinking some trends are "better" than others. I guess everything isn't equal or "whatev." In an industry that relies on trends (things catching onto the public and the public consuming/buying them) and shallowness (body type, skin color, blemish free, height, curves vs no curves) the horror that someone may want to dig deeper than "I like." The horror, "usetheknifeonly." This is a guy is tired of the "better this, better that" when it's the natural thing, usually one of the firs steps to do, when judging a particular article of clothing.
Who knew that justification would be such a ridiculous thing to ask for or to expect when it comes to personal fashion choices, at least when asked? Apparently it's quite rude ... But all those not in favor of joggers, according the logic displayed by users like "usetheknife," should keep their mouth closed. Those in favor? They're just victims of meanness and insular thinking. If someone asked me "Why?" on a certain item I am wearing I'd like to think I'd give them a decent enough answer besides "Cause me like." Know thy self better than the initial feeling of "like."
I'm not implying that joggers do not have a place in the fashion scene - mostly street wear types - I just found it incredibly ironic that those who have an interest in fashion are the ones proudly proclaiming to others to be "open-minded" and "take risks" when they get defensive and seem to be unable to discuss any possible functionality of a jogger.
With all that said and done, I do see a few functions that joggers can be competently used in: lounging around the pad, to-and-from the gym when it's cold enough outside (in fact, I'll be purchasing a pair for this very reason) or maybe a quick trip to the mall during the weekday. I wouldn't advise to wear one to the bars or clubs, or anything that would be deemed "entertainment" or any social gatherings.
You can find the entire discussion here.
What's my process when I pick out clothes to wear? My thinking puts pragmatism above anything else.
1. Wear I'm going. Will it be work, gym, wedding, night-out-on-the-town, social gathering (themed, casual, business casual), running errands around town, outdoor activity?
2. The weather. Is it hot? How hot? Cold? How cold? Will there be rain later in the day? It is snowing?
3. Fit & drape. Not as crucial as the first two, but it's nipping at their heels.
4. How modern it is in style.
5. Color, pattern, texture.
With those reasons listed, I'd put joggers under "gym pants" and "lounge wear." I may wear it when I walk the dog, or maybe a quick trip to the market (big maybe), but that's if I'm too lazy to put on jeans or a pair of chinos
Quickly, what did user "useknifeonly" said about the first reason? "... each of those essentially is just a specific way of dressing that has been accepted by a precedent that was set and then followed by everyone else ... " And what exactly is your point? That the standard of dressing for those situations are meaningless and just "a bunch of rules made up by non-risk takers"? You got a better precedent to offer and to follow? If you do, why is it better? I bet "useknifeonly" wears a suit to a wedding. I bet he wears appropriate work out clothes to the gym. I bet he wears no clothes when he has sex. Wait, is sex confined to the bedroom just some weird rule set by prudes who want to stifle affection and ones own sexuality? People should have sex on the street, the subway, in the classroom and in parks where everyone can see. Sex is beautiful! If you think it's "icky' then that's your opinion, and you're just jealous because you ain't getting any! Don't be a prude. Sex is just sex - don't like it, look away! I digress ...
Oh, and overalls look mightily fine on women depending on how they wear 'em. On men? If you aren't a farmer or a painter (painting dry walls and such), please refrain.
No comments :
Post a Comment