# Why you shouldn't wear black as day wear.



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

From Put This On -

"Black is a deceptively difficult color to match. One's inclination is to believe that it matches anything, but the truth is that in practical menswear terms, it matches very little."

" . . . . it tends to wash out the faces of most men whose coloration isn't very high contrast (meaning very dark hair and very fair skin), and it tends to look less than classy under natural light. It's a nice color for the evening, but in blazer form, it's still tough to fit into the wardrobe."

https://putthison.com/


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

Agree 100%. Black remains the "go to" color for the lazy and unsophisticated because it allegedly "matches everything." Black is astoundingly limited in its range.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

smujd said:


> Agree 100%. Black remains the "go to" color for the lazy and unsophisticated because it allegedly "matches everything." Black is astoundingly limited in its range.


And as a minor point; black can even be different colors as can grey. It can have brownish or greenish tones hidden in which can result in mismatched blacks.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

But it is still the most appropriate color to wear on the unfortunate occasion of a funeral. And as one ages, those occasions become more frequent so a gentleman-of-a-certain-age must have one black suit in his wardrobe. It may not get worn very often but now and again one does have to drag it out.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Oldsarge said:


> But it is still the most appropriate color to wear on the unfortunate occasion of a funeral. And as one ages, those occasions become more frequent so a gentleman-of-a-certain-age must have one black suit in his wardrobe. It may not get worn very often but now and again one does have to drag it out.


Some contend that black is not appropriate for funerals, but rather that charcoal grey is better. They feel black should be reserved only for evening wear. For myself, I see no reason why either shouldn't be worn at funeral, or for that matter, and darker suit.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Oldsarge said:


> But it is still the most appropriate color to wear on the occasion of a funeral.


Depends on where you are in the world. In Sweden for example light grey and charcoal are the standard at funerals worn with a white tie. In the UK, the number wearing black suits to a funeral continues to decrease. In fact, I've never worn black to a funeral in the UK - blue-black serge (police uniform), charcoal, mid-blue-grey yes, but never solid black.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Well, if we're going to play "it all depends on where", my BIL's bosses from Japan wear black for business almost exclusively. I understand the Chinese feel the same way.


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

I was just in Japan, and there are indeed a lot of men wearing black suits. Lots of really, really bad black suits. What I found interesting though, was up the ranks past middle management the black suits became much more scarce. At the executive level, nearly all the men wore grey or navy/blue, not black.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I guess for me, in 2012, to wear black at a funeral is so seldom done that (especially with a tie) it can look like you are trying to outdo the other mourners or something. Just wear a conservative suit (if you have one) or a sport coat with a (preferably) white shirt and a conservative tie and you will be fine. 

People on this board put way too much thought into the funeral thing; half the men at many funerals may not even be wearing ties. I know people are just trying to be appropriate, but with some responses, I get an "Oh cool, I can wear my suit vibe." That is just as inappropriate as a tank top and shorts at the funeral.


----------



## CdnTrad (May 27, 2012)

Racer said:


> I was just in Japan, and there are indeed a lot of men wearing black suits. Lots of really, really bad black suits. What I found interesting though, was up the ranks past middle management the black suits became much more scarce. At the executive level, nearly all the men wore grey or navy/blue, not black.


Interesting, I see almost the exact same thing here every day. Black suits abound, but never seen near the top of the corporation. Its not just the black suits that drive me crazy, but the inherent lack of tailoring. Nearly every cuff comes halfway down the hand.


----------



## Claybuster (Aug 29, 2007)

I am a minister and there are only two times I wear a black suit...funerals and weddings. I do have a nice black sport coat I wear with grey trousers. I know that when I go into Macy's (usually to get to Brooks Brothers just down from them) all the men who work there are wearing black head to toe with the exception of their tie and sometimes that is black. It looks horrible. I know it is just Macy's, but the corporate heads should know better. It is also bad promotion of their goods because the salespeople can not wear Macy's merchandise to work unless it is black, of course.


----------



## pichao (Apr 13, 2008)

I think black is appropriate at two different occasions. When attending à funeral, or when visiting à Grand Lodge..


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Racer said:


> I was just in Japan, and there are indeed a lot of men wearing black suits. Lots of really, really bad black suits. What I found interesting though, was up the ranks past middle management the black suits became much more scarce. At the executive level, nearly all the men wore grey or navy/blue, not black.


This still is pretty true in America. It's not hard to find black suits. It's hard to find them on people I would be willing to swap jobs with for a week.


----------



## calfnkip (Mar 21, 2011)

Flanderian said:


> And as a minor point; black can even be different colors as can grey. It can have brownish or greenish tones hidden in which can result in mismatched blacks.


Flanderian is completely correct here. Not all blacks are created equal. One of the tanneries I worked with often made certain leathers where 'black' was actually a function of blue - that is when mixing the colors (back in the days before pre-mixed coloring and finishing materials) we started with blue and took it to black by gradually adding certain other colors during the mix phase. The end product was definitely black but it had a unique look to it in natural light.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> ...but with some responses, I get an "Oh cool, I can wear my suit vibe." That is just as inappropriate as a tank top and shorts at the funeral.


Very true; the spirit should be one of mourning, not an opportunity to "dress up."

Reminds me of the time years ago when a friend was talking about abstaining from eating meat - in this case, filet mignon - due to Lent. His sacrificial choice: he took his wife out for a lobster dinner at a fine restaurant...


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Coudn't agree more. Trying to look sharp at a funeral is inappropriate. Vanity is pathetic at such times.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Tiger said:


> Very true; the spirit should be one of mourning, not an opportunity to "dress up."


I don't see why it can't be a little of both. Besides, at some funerals I have attended, I haven't really been sufficiently close to the deceased to mourn their passing very much.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

The Rambler said:


> Coudn't agree more. Trying to look sharp at a funeral is inappropriate. Vanity is pathetic at such times.


Is wearing a charcoal suit, white shirt and black tie looking sharp or looking respectful?


----------



## Claybuster (Aug 29, 2007)

I fail to see what is wrong with dressing up and looking sharp at a funeral. I would think it most respectful if people did make sure they looked their best at a funeral whether one knew the person well or not.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Racer said:


> I was just in Japan, and there are indeed a lot of men wearing black suits. Lots of really, really bad black suits. What I found interesting though, was up the ranks past middle management the black suits became much more scarce. At the executive level, nearly all the men wore grey or navy/blue, not black.


Until you get to the _very_ top where black is universal. These men don't have to care how they look and they don't care what you think.


----------



## Chris Liu (Apr 29, 2012)

I guess I am emo then because black and shades of black like charcoal, grey and dark grey are my most favorite colors. Im mostly always in dark colors. You wont find red, green, yellow or purples on me!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Claybuster said:


> I fail to see what is wrong with dressing up and looking sharp at a funeral. I would think it most respectful if people did make sure they looked their best at a funeral whether one knew the person well or not.


For me, dressing well at a funeral is about respect for the departed and their mourners. Sober and simple is the rule. I typically wear a plain dark blue/grey suit and solid dark grey tie. Simple, plain gold cuff links and white linen PS.

Others have felt differently. Funerals were my mother's favorite social occasion. She enjoyed them far more than weddings, and would wear her best finery. Both she and my aunt planned out every detail of their own funerals at least 30 years prior to their demise, so as to be able to enjoy the occasion in advance.

Should you attend a traditonal Irish wake, bring your dancing shoes and a fiddle. (And perhaps a pair of brass knuckles! :drunken_smilie


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Racer said:


> I was just in Japan, and there are indeed a lot of men wearing black suits.


How about pajamas?


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

Oldsarge said:


> Until you get to the _very_ top where black is universal. These men don't have to care how they look and they don't care what you think.


At that point the feeling becomes mutual. Someone who feels they don't have to care about anything or anybody gets the same level of respect from me.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Flanderian said:


> How about pajamas?
> 
> View attachment 4506


LOL! Showing your age,there, Flanderian? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## iamogfan (Apr 27, 2012)

To my demise, I actually wore a black suit to all of my investment banking interviews last year. I have now been enlightened from this forum and my black suit will be put aside for funerals and such.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Oldsarge said:


> LOL! Showing your age,there, Flanderian? :icon_smile_big:


Gosh, darn Charlie! :icon_saint7kg:


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

There is nothing wrong with wanting to look ones best for a funeral. I wear a suit even if I'm likely to be in the minority. 

I just hate to see the obsessing. I said nothing about looking good at a funeral. I do feel that anything remotely like preening or "overdoing" is inappropriate. While the "black for funeral" thing is popular here, I rarely see it (and I am 55 and go to church and have a relatively conservative family). I still think that advising people to wear black at funerals (when I see almost no one doing it) runs the risk of looking like you are trying to "outmourn" everyone else.

To me, just wear a conservative suit, white or pale blue shirt and subdued conservative tie. You will be appropriately dressed without being over the top even if you are at a funeral where you are one of the few people in a suit.


----------



## J.Marko (Apr 14, 2009)

One should especially avoid wearing morning dress, or stroller (i.e., black lounge) during the day. You risk looking lazy and unsophisticated, and people will suspect you are heading to a nightclub, emo, or a low level Asian business man. This all proves that black never looks good during the day, and never was done in the past, especially the entire 19th century.


Sorry, I couldn't help it.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

+2!!

And of course, since the nineteenth century was the nadir of men's style what with Brummel's distressing influence . . . :devil:


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

J.Marko said:


> One should especially avoid wearing morning dress, or stroller (i.e., black lounge) during the day. You risk looking lazy and unsophisticated, and people will suspect you are heading to a nightclub, emo, or a low level Asian business man. This all proves that black never looks good during the day, and never was done in the past, especially the entire 19th century.


LOL! Of course, back then men's ties were usually black or grey as well. To me, the most objectionable aspect of black is that it makes every other color look garish and neon next to it.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

In other words it makes dressing even more of a challenge? CD, I thought you a more sporting gent than that. For shame, suggesting that one should take the easy way out. :biggrin:


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Oldsarge said:


> Well, if we're going to play "it all depends on where", my BIL's bosses from Japan wear black for business almost exclusively. *I understand the Chinese feel the same way.*


Yeh, I think it's true. I've seen a lot of black here. Perhaps this aversion to wearing black clothing, except for funerals, is a western or US culture thing? Probably like in another recent thread, most people in the UK wont wear orange coloured ties, unless there's a particular reason for them to do so. e.g. they work for a certain airline or mobile phone company, or are members of an Orange Lodge or something. Many Chinese won't wear green colour clothing, because I believe it's considered bad and unlucky. Red is the good colour in Chinese culture, whereas white tends to be the colour for mourning the deceased.


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

Racer said:


> Lots of _*really, really bad*_ black suits.


And there's the rub. I've always had at least two really, really good black suits in my closet, one SB and one DB - and I love them (as does my wife). With the right shirt, tie, PS and shoes, a good black suit that's well fitted to a passable frame (6'2", 42L/34 waist) looks quite fine to me.

If you pair it with a bright red tie, matching silk and garish shirt, you'll look like Liberace (which is also true with a suit of navy, gray or brown). And black seems more revealing of quality shortcuts - for some reason, an inexpensive black suit looks more like an inexpensive suit than does an inexpensive gray suit. Design, construction, tailoring and material flaws and compromises are more obvious. But a rich black fabric has the same wonderful vibe as a rich dark blue, and good tailoring brings out the best in it.

If you don't like the look, that's fine. But if you've wanted a black suit and were disappointed by what you got, consider going upscale. And don't worry about trying to look good at a funeral - if your clothing is well chosen, well fitted and well cared for, you shouldn't be worrying at all about how you look. You'll have the confidence of knowing you look fine and right, always and anywhere, effortlessly.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I consider that black items have a faint odour of tawdriness about them; even if they are expensive.


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

Shaver said:


> I consider that black items have a faint odour of tawdriness about them; even if they are expensive.


Wow - that's serious stuff. Per Webster: "Tawdry: cheap and gaudy in appearance or quality". I'm eternally grateful that the odour is no worse than faint.

I believe I referred to my own black suits as "really, really good", not "really, really expensive". And I chose this phrase only as a play on Racer's description of "lots of really, really bad black suits". I'll try to have less fun in the future - I wouldn't want to add bawdiness to my indictment for tawdriness. But as I said above,




bluesman said:


> If you don't like the look, that's fine. But if you've wanted a black suit and were disappointed by what you got, consider going upscale.



Annerire è il nuovo nero, il mio amico.
​


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

bluesman said:


> I believe I referred to my own black suits as "really, really good", not "really, really expensive".


Bluesman, allow me to reassure you that my comment was *not* directed at your own comment, it is merely chronologically posted beneath it. Black items, to me, can often look very cheap - no matter the quality. It is a personal preference and not one that I expect everyone to agree with, merely a contribution to the thread.


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Black items, to me, can often look very cheap - no matter the quality.


Agreed! And to each his own choice. But I've always been amazed at the number of well-dressed friends and colleagues who compliment me on a black suit, tell me that they'd love to "be able to wear one", and lament feeling that they don't look good in one or "can't pull it off" (as so many phrase it). Some act as though they fear being thought to be tawdry in a black suit...

Many men like the look but let some combination of inhibition and false economy keep them from doing the deed. To them, I say "go for it!" Life's too short to let the hang-ups of others keep you from enjoying yourself. It's only clothing.

Ciao bella, il mio amico!


----------



## ipse dixit (Apr 11, 2012)

Personally, I would never wear a black suit, unless it was a DJ. It just screams Men's Warehouse.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Funny, the CEO of Toshiba gets his from bespoke tailors in Milan. I think they run in the $4-6,000 range.


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

It seems his bespoke tailor makes very nice LIGHT GREY suits :wink2:


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

ipse dixit said:


> Personally, I would never wear a black suit, unless it was a DJ. It just screams Men's Warehouse.


You must be hearing it wrong. Men's Wearhouse suits (regardless of color) are trained to scream










And for many men, they're right.

Turn up your hearing aid - black suits are actually speaking Italian. They're saying Armani, Kiton, Brioni, Belvest, Zegna, Cuccinelli.........


----------



## jwa_jwa_jwa (Jul 13, 2010)

For all the dumping on those that wear black ( and I am one of them), I am often surprised at so many designers both interior and fashion designers that wear black almost exclusively!! ok I'm referring to lots of designers I've seen on tv but they wear a lot of black nonetheless.


----------



## poorboy (Feb 23, 2012)

ipse dixit said:


> Personally, I would never wear a black suit, unless it was a DJ. It just screams Men's Warehouse.


Funny you should mention this.

https://www.mooresclothing.com/mor/menswear/browse.jsp?page=1&look=3


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

jwa_jwa_jwa said:


> For all the dumping on those that wear black ( and I am one of them), I am often surprised at so many designers both interior and fashion designers that wear black almost exclusively!! ok I'm referring to lots of designers I've seen on tv but they wear a lot of black nonetheless.


One of my favourite designers, AFAIK almost always wears black ...H R Giger.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

MikeDT said:


> One of my favourite designers, AFAIK almost always wears black ...H R Giger.


Gifted artist, questionable arbiter of style :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## lalaland (Apr 10, 2012)

"Black remains the "go to" color for the lazy and unsophisticated..." - smujd


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

lalaland at first I was convinced that this post supported the notion that black is contraindicated. Then I remembered your tastes.


----------



## lalaland (Apr 10, 2012)

@shaver - ha HA. clever chap you are.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Thank you, that's very kind of you to say so.

Now, these latest images are _definitely_ in support of the anti-black argument...... aren't they?! :icon_scratch:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Thank you, that's very kind of you to say so.
> 
> Now, these latest images are _definitely_ in support of the anti-black argument...... aren't they?! :icon_scratch:


With the exception of the Sinatra photo (assuming it really is black), yes.


----------



## lalaland (Apr 10, 2012)

@Shaver - the images are in support of me making fun of these absurd, unsupportable arguments and proclamations that repeatedly pop up on this forum - as though something so personal and contextual as style can be "correct" in some kind of Kantian moral-absolutist sense. They are so absurd they border on unconscious self parody.

Personally I much more admire the aesthetic development of a person who can pull off the rock-and-roll torn and tattered look one day, and then be equally as comfortable in his suit from Savile Row the next. That is one example of what it means to be sartorially cosmopolitan.

These narrow definitional arguments about what is or is not "correct" are provincial and parochial - which of course is ironic, seeing as the types of people who perpetuate these arguments mistakenly see themselves as being aesthetically sophisticated.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> With the exception of the Sinatra photo (assuming it really is black), yes.


To clarify; I referred to the second post, the one including the various miscreants of the corporate rock industry. I would not wish members to mistakenly believe that I had slurred Sinatra.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

lalaland said:


> @Shaver - the images are in support of me making fun of these absurd, unsupportable arguments and proclamations that repeatedly pop up on this forum - as though something so personal and contextual as style can be "correct" in some kind of Kantian moral-absolutist sense. They are so absurd they border on unconscious self parody.
> 
> Personally I much more admire the aesthetic development of a person who can pull off the rock-and-roll torn and tattered look one day, and then be equally as comfortable in his suit from Savile Row the next. That is one example of what it means to be sartorially cosmopolitan.
> 
> These narrow definitional arguments about what is or is not "correct" are provincial and parochial - which of course is ironic, seeing as the types of people who perpetuate these arguments mistakenly see themselves as being aesthetically sophisticated.


The absurd proclamations are, as I understand it, merely members expressing their individual tastes.

We could commence each post with a disclaimer, would you approve this;"The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not reflect in any way those of the sartorial forum of which he is a member."

To be a silly old so-and-so, whose last notable contribution to popular music was in 1965, and who dresses in expensive rags whilst well over pensionable age is not an aesthetic development to which I aspire. No matter how cosmopolitan. Forgive me my typically unsophisticated perspective, my unconscious self parody. 
:icon_smile_wink:​


----------



## lalaland (Apr 10, 2012)

Actually I wasn't referring to anyone in particular with regards to self parody and certainly not you sir.

Disclaimer sounds good! You should be a singing barrister, or perhaps you are. . .


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

lalaland said:


> Actually I wasn't referring to anyone in particular with regards to self parody and certainly not you sir.
> 
> Disclaimer sounds good! You should be a barrister, or perhaps you are. . .


lalaland, when I employ the 'wink' icon I hope that I clearly advertise my intention to indulge in good natured leg pulling.


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

lalaland said:


> sartorially cosmopolitan


Wow!!! I lOVE that phrase. I may never find a context in which to use it, but it bounces exuberantly off the tongue.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

lalaland said:


> These narrow definitional arguments about what is or is not "correct" are provincial and parochial - which of course is ironic, seeing as the types of people who perpetuate these arguments mistakenly see themselves as being aesthetically sophisticated.


Nonsense. Just as the grammar and syntax within a sentence can be *wrong* *from the perspective of the rules of the language*, clothing can be "wrong" from the perspective of a particular dialect of clothing. You seem to imagine the world of clothing as some pre-Babylonian unified whole, where the language is not divided. That's not the case. The "tattered rock-and-roll look" is not a *look*, it's an entirely different language of clothing. I don't speak that language, so it looks absolutely unintelligible to me, and the notion that there's a way to do it well or poorly seems risible to me.

If you want to take the relativist position that all languages are equally valid, that's fine. (I'm not sure it's correct, but we'll set that aside for the moment.) But that doesn't mean that the rules of individual languages _don't exist_. Evun ef yuose thnk izz arbitrationary, tihs sennance si rong.


----------



## efdll (Sep 11, 2008)

Sinatra wore black suits at night on stage and was known to send Rat Pack members back to their Vegas hotel room to change before they came on with him if they were wearing a blue suit. Is that black Armani is wearing. He only wears dark blue because he thinks, correctly, that it's what looks best with white hair. Downtown/Hollywood/showbiz/rock'n roll/art gallery black can look OK in the right context, but the look is overdone and can look sleazy. Art marchands in skinny black suits and ties look like gangsters. I guess there's a certain honesty in that.


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

Now you've got me thinking! I never considered clothing to be a medium of communication, but it clearly is. What we wear says something about us even without intent, and willful use of clothing to send a message is ubiquitous. But I don't believe that all clothing is always a statement for all people. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.....


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

bluesman said:


> Now you've got me thinking! I never considered clothing to be a medium of communication, but it clearly is. What we wear says something about us even without intent, and willful use of clothing to send a message is ubiquitous. But I don't believe that all clothing is always a statement for all people. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.....


Sure. And sometimes idle pleasantries in the elevator aren't really intended to communicate anything specific. But even then, there's a wrong way to do it in each language and culture. A lot of the stuff lalaland shows is the classic language equivalent of an obscene gesture. Obscene gestures rarely get people arrested anymore, no longer will start a fight 100% of the time, and they may even impress the sullen 15 year old onlooker; but they're still not the way to reliably win friends and influence people, or even be thought to be intelligent and well-mannered.

As with hand gestures, what's obscene in one culture may be friendly in another, and vice versa. But in the context of classic or traditional men's clothing, the "tattered rock and roll look" is obscene. And it's neither parochial nor provincial to dislike having an obscene gesture made in one's direction. In fact, I would argue that the "tattered" look is precisely designed to offend, shock, and annoy, much like early punk rock. It's a snarling Johnny Rotten scream.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Nonsense. Just as the grammar and syntax within a sentence can be *wrong* *from the perspective of the rules of the language*, clothing can be "wrong" from the perspective of a particular dialect of clothing. You seem to imagine the world of clothing as some pre-Babylonian unified whole, where the language is not divided. That's not the case. The "tattered rock-and-roll look" is not a *look*, it's an entirely different language of clothing. I don't speak that language, so it looks absolutely unintelligible to me, and the notion that there's a way to do it well or poorly seems risible to me.
> 
> If you want to take the relativist position that all languages are equally valid, that's fine. (I'm not sure it's correct, but we'll set that aside for the moment.) But that doesn't mean that the rules of individual languages _don't exist_. Evun ef yuose thnk izz arbitrationary, tihs sennance si rong.


Love that way of putting the argument - LOL. Couldn't agree more with you and Shaver.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

And what is hanging off the first chap's wrist? A ship's anchor?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Balfour said:


> And what is hanging off the first chap's wrist? A ship's anchor?


I reckon it's some new-fangled compact theodolite.


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> But in the context of classic or traditional men's clothing, the "tattered rock and roll look" is obscene.


I too view with amazement the intentional tearing of whole cloth. But I also know many who look that way because they simply don't care. An old friend of mine (a world-famous neurologist and a passable musician) wears his favorite shirts, pants and sweaters until they're more space than substance.

My brother-in-law was a world leader in social work - chair of his department at a noted university, author of many books some of which are considered classics in his field, and invited lecturer around the world. He either bought his clothes at thrift shops or found new ones that looked the part, so he looked like a punk rocker his entire life (OK - a punk rocker with progeria in his later years). Interestingly, some of his friends were very clothes-conscious. I loved people-watching at affairs attended by multiple colleagues of his, as they ran the gamut from tweedy professorial through yacht-deck elegance to overdone foppery (with the occasional tattered troglodyte).

It's hard to make the case that my BIL was thumbing his nose at society through his attire, given his profession and lifelong sensitivity to others. He was a wonderful person without a negative bone in his body. He was an integral member of society who simply saw no reason to spend much on clothing.

Freud didn't achieve universal name recognition without achieving some resonance in society. But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.....


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

bluesman,

Don't get me wrong. I've got a few shirts and trousers that meet that description as well... usually things for which I cannot find a suitable replacement. If you see me on the golf course in February, there's a very strong chance you'll see me in some old whipcord trousers that were attacked by moths and have been given several patching/amateur-reweaving treatments. In the summer, I have a couple of plaid madras shirts that get worn around the house (and even to the grocery or hardware store) that have the collar almost completely worn through. Authentic fraying or other wear that occurs naturally is one thing; to continue the language analogy, they are like dropping the 'g's at the end of words when casually drinking a beer with friends.

But the contrived stuff being lauded by others is another thing. Not only is it inauthentic, both the tattered-ness and the other qualities of the clothing are expressly intended to be provocative. Black leather, tight fits, etc... all designed to communicate some primal rebellion against "the man." (Nevermind the absurdity of paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for t-shirts, jeans, etc., which came out of some arm of a corporate conglomerate as a form of rebellion.)

One other observation. I have many friends and relatives who absolutely "do not care about clothes." Many of them are academics. I like them (else they would not be friends). They are also liars of the first order. Of _course_ they care about clothes. They care deeply about sending the message that they are too occupied with more noble/spiritual/enlightened pursuits than the vanity that is clothing. And they use their clothing to send that message. A non-verbal apophasis, if you will.


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> They are also liars of the first order. Of _course_ they care about clothes. They care deeply about sending the message that they are too occupied with more noble/spiritual/enlightened pursuits than the vanity that is clothing.


Wow again - as the neighborhood cynic, I find it very hard to do this. But I must:

I don't think everyone who claims not to care about clothes is lying, and I don't believe that all who dress differently from most others in their lives are thumbing their noses at us proles. Many are - but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.....



CuffDaddy said:


> they are like dropping the 'g's at the end of words when casually drinking a beer with friends.


The only thing we have to fear is beer itself.


----------



## lalaland (Apr 10, 2012)

Shaver said:


> lalaland, when I employ the 'wink' icon I hope that I clearly advertise my intention to indulge in good natured leg pulling.


Shaver - when I said "disclaimer sounds good" I hope that was clearly a joke as well.


----------



## lalaland (Apr 10, 2012)

bluesman said:


> Wow!!! I lOVE that phrase. I may never find a context in which to use it, but it bounces exuberantly off the tongue.


bluesman - please send $0.05 royalty each time you use that phrase to my paypal account.


----------



## lalaland (Apr 10, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Nonsense. Just as the grammar and syntax within a sentence can be *wrong* *from the perspective of the rules of the language*, clothing can be "wrong" from the perspective of a particular dialect of clothing.


I agree with this.



> You seem to imagine the world of clothing as some pre-Babylonian unified whole, where the language is not divided.


No I do not think this, most definitely not. Maybe I should clarify more what I do think.



> The "tattered rock-and-roll look" is not a *look*, it's an entirely different language of clothing.


I'm not sure that I agree that the term "language" can be used here, but ok. I get what you are saying, I think.



> I don't speak that language, so it looks absolutely unintelligible to me


This is a perfectly reasonable position to take. You don't "speak the language" of streetwear so it's unintelligible to you. But in this case you are not randomly declaring something to be "incorrect" - you're just acknowledging that you don't speak that language.



> , and the notion that there's a way to do it well or poorly seems risible to me.


I think, perhaps, to understand that there is indeed a large difference between doing rock-and-roll well vs. poorly, is made easier if you live in or near a city such as L.A./New York/London/Paris/Berlin etc. because you will be exposed to so much of it done right that your sensibilities will begin to intuitively understand it. Then you go to the suburbs (not to denigrate the suburbs too much, because I grew up in them) and you see, in general, the looks done cheaply and poorly - and you see that there is in fact a big difference. It's just like with traditional men's clothing - a suit from an artisan in Naples is ostensibly the same general type of garment as a Calvin Klein diffusion suit for $299 at Mens Wearhouse - but they are worlds apart.



> If you want to take the relativist position that all languages are equally valid, that's fine. (I'm not sure it's correct, but we'll set that aside for the moment.)


I don't take that position. I imagine that I am more of a relativist than you are, but less of one than when I was younger than I am now. I'm not entirely sure if my changing positions are due to unwanted but somewhat inevitable mental calcification that comes with age or if it's due to maturity. I suspect it's the former.



> But that doesn't mean that the rules of individual languages _don't exist_. Evun ef yuose thnk izz arbitrationary, tihs sennance si rong.


AGREE. And I don't try to claim otherwise.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

lalaland said:


> I think, perhaps, to understand that there is indeed a large difference between doing rock-and-roll well vs. poorly, is made easier if you live in or near a city such as L.A./New York/London/Paris/Berlin etc. because you will be exposed to so much of it done right that your sensibilities will begin to intuitively understand it. Then you go to the suburbs (not to denigrate the suburbs too much, because I grew up in them) and you see, in general, the looks done cheaply and poorly - and you see that there is in fact a big difference. It's just like with traditional men's clothing - a suit from an artisan in Naples is ostensibly the same general type of garment as a Calvin Klein diffusion suit for $299 at Mens Wearhouse - but they are world's apart.


Possibly. We seem to have some common ground of agreement based on a clothing-as-language analogy (although I understand you don't buy the analogy 100%), and I'm content with that state of things. Where I doubt we will get to much agreement is the question that I previously raised and then dropped: whether all clothing languages are equal. I have a pretty strong belief that they are not. I feel the same way about music, where I have broad tastes but a strong sense that some genres are inherently more meritorious than others.

Rather than saying I don't see how rock-and-roll-tattered can be done well, I should probably say that I think doing it well still leaves it pretty poor.... kind of like the finest dog-turd burrito ever made, or the best techno dance club song. But I acknowledge that this is a harder argument to make on objective terms, and is far more subject to personal preference. Therefore, I don't expect to reach agreement even though I'm right. ;P


----------



## lalaland (Apr 10, 2012)

efdll said:


> Is that black Armani is wearing. He only wears dark blue because he thinks, correctly, that it's what looks best with white hair.


Not sure - it's quite difficult to see a difference between dark blue and black on my computer monitor.



> Downtown/Hollywood/showbiz/rock'n roll/art gallery black can look OK in the right context, but the look is overdone and can look sleazy.


Definitely.


----------



## lalaland (Apr 10, 2012)

> But I don't believe that all clothing is always a statement for all people. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.....


Yes. There are some sartorial slobs who are sending a reverse-snobbery message that they are too good to care about clothing, as someone mentioned elsewhere on this thread. But there are also definitely people who simply don't think about clothing one way or another. I live near Cal Tech and it's hard for me to believe that most of the clothing-challenged science geniuses I see wandering around Pasadena are purposefully sending an anti-style message. I think mainly their heads are in the clouds.


----------



## lalaland (Apr 10, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> A lot of the stuff lalaland shows is the classic language equivalent of an obscene gesture. . in the context of classic or traditional men's clothing, the "tattered rock and roll look" is obscene. And it's neither parochial nor provincial to dislike having an obscene gesture made in one's direction. . .In fact, I would argue that the "tattered" look is precisely designed to offend, shock, and annoy, much like early punk rock. It's a snarling Johnny Rotten scream.


Now finally I disagree with something you said. With the exception perhaps of Greg Lauren wearing the tailored cub scout uniform I don't think I've posted anything that has a sartorial message of "f*ck you." Yes the origins of punk, Johnny Rotten, etc. may have been that way but the meaning has changed.

There is a big difference between etymology and semantics. The first is the origin of a word, the second is its current meaning. Perhaps tight leather pants as you mentioned for example, once upon a time, were a conscious stab at the establishment. Today, I have two pairs of pants - black waxed denim by Nudie and a pair of almost-but-not-quite-tight black pants by Dior Homme that perhaps reference early "**** you" statements, but which today simply say "sexy" - they both fit and I wear them both only in certain contexts (not to church, for example, or to a business meeting).

I also would not wear EITHER of them in the suburbs or in a place such as Oklahoma City ( a city I visit for business) because the people there, as you said, don't "speak the language" and I have no intention to tell people to "f*ck off" with my clothing.

I wear clothes like that in West L.A., Hollywood and Manhattan - where people understand that language.

In fact the wonderful thing about true urban capitals is that so many languages are spoken simultaneously.


----------



## lalaland (Apr 10, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Where I doubt we will get to much agreement is the question that I previously raised and then dropped: whether all clothing languages are equal. I have a pretty strong belief that they are not. I feel the same way about music, where I have broad tastes but a strong sense that some genres are inherently more meritorious than others.


I will try to better articulate my position after some thought. I don't feel that all are equal either.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> One other observation. I have many friends and relatives who absolutely "do not care about clothes." Many of them are academics. I like them (else they would not be friends). They are also liars of the first order. Of _course_ they care about clothes. They care deeply about sending the message that they are too occupied with more noble/spiritual/enlightened pursuits than the vanity that is clothing. And they use their clothing to send that message. A non-verbal apophasis, if you will.


"Liars of the first order" covers it nicely. I worked around such people for decades. Those who faked nobility, spirituality and enlightenment while looking grubby quite often faked more important academic undertakings but kept on looking grubby. A phony is a phony.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

godan, I'd actually defend them to some degree, on the grounds that about 99.99% of humanity is equivalently phony. And those who aren't are probably the most unbearable of all!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

lalaland said:


> There is a big difference between etymology and semantics. The first is the origin of a word, the second is its current meaning.


This is a topic that was often discussed (under different labels) in the context of jeans. Jeans are objectively ugly on men. They are also impractical, as they are hot in the heat, and insulate poorly in the cold. They are objectively not very comfortable, except to the extent that they feel familiar. Yet they are extremely popular. Why? I think the answer can only be understood by reference to the connotation, rather than their strict definition. As you know, many words have subtle shades that are not reliably captured in standard definitions; these meanings often arise from evocations of other concepts that are not explicit in the word. It is not unusual for these connotations to have their roots in the older history of the word, even if that history is rarely expressly discussed, or even widely known.

For example, the word sh*t and excrement share the same dictionary definition. Yet they are used very differently. Excrement is derived from Latin. Sh*t comes from Old English. When the Normans invaded England, many English words were replaced with Latinate words among the gentry, and use of OE words became a mark of low birth; this was useful as a way of suppressing the "native" culture and subordinating it to the invader culture. Relatively few people know this today, but that doesn't prevent people from understanding that sh*t is to be eschewed in formal, polite conversation (unless one is trying to deliberately be shocking, etc.). The same is true for many forms of clothing. Their origins, although no longer a conscious factor in peoples' decision to wear those items, has a significant impact on the connotation.

And that's precisely the case with all the "rock-and-roll" clothing. Rock music is undergirded by (comparatively) overt sexuality and rebellion against sexual and (from the 60's on) pharmacological mores. Invoking rock in your clothing is to invoke its underpinnings. At this point, society is too jaded to react with much genuine outrage, but that "look at me, I'm being offensive" connotation is the reason people wear that clothing. Otherwise, the clothing is inexplicable.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

lalaland said:


> I wear clothes like that in West L.A., Hollywood and Manhattan - where people understand that language.
> 
> In fact the wonderful thing about true urban capitals is that so many languages are spoken simultaneously.


In other words, you wear that clothing in LA to express a mutually self-congratulatory "f*** you" to the rubes in Oklahoma. "Yay, we're so cool, we're speaking a language those fly-over humps can't understand!"

Have you ever seen the South Park where Stan's family buys a Prius and moves to San Francisco?


----------



## SocraticLove (May 15, 2012)

lalaland said:


> @Shaver - the images are in support of me making fun of these absurd, unsupportable arguments and proclamations that repeatedly pop up on this forum - as though something so personal and contextual as style can be "correct" in some kind of Kantian moral-absolutist sense. They are so absurd they border on unconscious self parody.
> 
> Personally I much more admire the aesthetic development of a person who can pull off the rock-and-roll torn and tattered look one day, and then be equally as comfortable in his suit from Savile Row the next. That is one example of what it means to be sartorially cosmopolitan.
> 
> These narrow definitional arguments about what is or is not "correct" are provincial and parochial - which of course is ironic, seeing as the types of people who perpetuate these arguments mistakenly see themselves as being aesthetically sophisticated.


Hi lalaland,

Let me first say, I rather enjoy your posts on clothing. They're a bit contrarian at times but I think that's what I like about them. You are not afraid to state your convictions and follow up in defense of them.

I must say, though, that there seems to some subtle confusions in this particular post of yours, read in conjunction with the ones following it.

You make reference to things like sartorial cosmopolitanism and aesthetic development but unless there is something of an objective benchmark, these notions carry little analytical weight. If we wish to have a profitable conversation and discussion of the merits of various styles, we must be able to not only speak the same language, but there must also be some level of commensurability between langauges. Otherwise, we are just engaging in rhetoric, as opposed to reasoned aesthetic philosophy. Thus, one cannot be a relativist if one cares about the truth in matters such as these.

Indeed, I think there is a difference between individualisation and relativisation. Take, for example, this notion of sartorial cosmopolitanism (SC) that you've brought up here. While we may each, as individuals, manifest or express SC differently, we are still exemplifying something that is objective. We just exemplify the concept of SC in _indivdualised_ ways. But it would be a grave error to suppose that SC is _relativised_ to each and every individual, such that SC is always different, as a _concept_. We express SC differently but we still have a shared understanding of what the concept amounts to, such that we can speak intelligibly of it.

The same goes for other sartorial concepts like style; there must be some enduring quality to them. So, I tend to agree with CuffDaddy that while there are different languages, they are certainly not all equal and we can debate the merits of demerits of any given one.

So, while you indicated that you may be more of a relativist than CuffDaddy, I think that, in reality, neither of you are relativists. If either of you really were relativists about sartorial matters, you wouldn't be having this conversation.


----------



## lalaland (Apr 10, 2012)

uh oh - when someone has a reference to Socrates in his screen name I must read his post carefully. Lalaland pours another cup of coffee: Shall respond after caffeination (is that a word?).


----------



## Mox (May 30, 2012)

I believe a lot of these style messages are initiated on a subconscious level. A person may not realize and even outright deny—with intended honesty—that they are doing so.

I'm enjoying this conversation. It's interesting to see where I agree with each of you.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Except in the case of the Hollywood types who dress the way designers pay them to dress . . . at the suggestion of their publicists.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Let's hear it for unconscious self parody.*



Shaver said:


> To be a silly old so-and-so, whose last notable contribution to popular music was in 1965, and who dresses in expensive rags whilst well over pensionable age is not an aesthetic development to which I aspire. No matter how cosmopolitan. Forgive me my typically unsophisticated perspective, my unconscious self parody.
> :icon_smile_wink:[/INDENT]


Exceptionally well-put. I quite agree.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*An enjoyable read*

Can't help but remark on how enjoyable this thread is: erudition, eloquence, humor.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

This is a great discussion. Love it.

Before I started educating myself on how to dress, I too believed that black was a universal color and it worked everywhere with everything. Express Men used it on all the mannequins and they surely knew what they were doing!

Now I see why black is not the greatest color for clothing: it has no definition or contrast unless you are in extremely bright light. Personally I think that dark grays and navys are perfectly acceptable substitutes for black suits (even at funerals).


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

> Otherwise, the clothing is inexplicable.


As incomprehensible as it is to me too, maybe someone actually likes it. Or (more believably) maybe it's being used as a communication tool to scream, "Hey! You're all taking yourselves 'way too seriously!"



> Jeans are objectively ugly on men.


The strength of indignation expressed in some of these posts suggests quasi-religious fervor. Must our children fear future clothing crusades? Brooks burnings? Piana pogroms?

Lenny Bruce was once considered shocking too. I'm reminded of the words of the great sage Chad Mitchell: "Norman Vincent Peale may think he's kidding us along. But the John Birch Society knows he spilled the beans - he keeps on preaching brotherhood, but we know what he means."


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

An enjoyable but simultaneously frustrating thread! Two thoughts:

Some posters have wandered into the realm of sartorial relativity and subjectivity so deeply that it seems as if they believe that *everything *is appropriate (is this word now devoid of meaning?) and can be worn _*anytime. *_Far too rudderless for me!

Secondly, it seems as if American life in general has become one huge, disgusting, and degrading reality television show, replete with freakish attire. The innate "disgustingness" of many people is influenced/reinforced by the entertainment, sports, and clothing industries, and those industries often simply react to people's horrifyingly bad taste by giving them exactly what they want. Most stores sell garbage partly because "it's the style" as determined by the sewer mongers of America, but also because there aren't enough decent people looking to buy fine quality traditional goods. If there were loads of people demanding such goods, businesses would meet that need. There isn't, so they don't. 
Americans have taken their style and culture cues from the most vile elements in our society. It's been happening incrementally since the 1960s; it has now reached irreversible proportions. It won't be long until all vestiges of classical and traditional European and American culture are extinguished.

Some praise that development; for me, it's painfully lamentable.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

bluesman said:


> The strength of indignation expressed in some of these posts suggests quasi-religious fervor. Must our children fear future clothing crusades? Brooks burnings? Piana pogroms?


No, people can wear chicken suits if they like. But in view of the massive marketing and pop-culture weight behind various clothing trends and items, if those who are unimpressed by them do not SHOUT their opposition, they will be all that's available. Those swimming against the current often have to be pretty unequivocal in their language in order to have a remote chance of being heard.


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

> it seems as if American life in general has become one huge, disgusting, and degrading reality television show, replete with freakish attire.


Sadly, I can't disagree with the sentiment, although the words are a bit harsh. When my wife and I saw "Back to the Future 2", my only comment was that it was probably a more accurate predictor of the future than was 1. And 3 confirmed this for me.



> there aren't enough decent people looking to buy fine quality traditional goods...Americans have taken their style and culture cues from the most vile elements in our society.


I'm having a tougher time with this one. It's simply unfair to relate decency to appearance (e.g. the sartorial elegance of the white collar criminals who have left so many elderly Americans unfunded for retirement). And vileness is totally subjective. I find the obesity of excess to be vile - I don't like to look at fat people. This seems to place me on the farthest reach of the bell shaped curve, given the growth rate all around me. I'm offended by the fact that the amount of food that had to be consumed voluntarily to raise the average BMI above 28 in this country would have prevented starvation in much of the rest of the world. We're walking around with a collective 15 billion days of totally wasted nourishment around our bodies (3500 calories per pound of body fat is two days' diet for a starving person; an estimated 25 pound per person weight increase from 1960 to 2000 x 2 days per pound x 300 million people = 15 billion life-sustaining days of food). This, to me, is truly vile. And the finest bespoke tailor cannot make a fat person look like anything but a well dressed fat person.

So one should use the term "vile" with care. I find much of today's fashionable clothing to be unattractive and uninteresting. But I must reserve vile, disgusting, degrading and freakish for remediable matters of more consequence.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Ah, good, a totally off-topic and gratuitous jab at overweight people, the last demographic group it is socially acceptable to disparage on the basis of pure prejudice. Surely you're not so ignorant as to think that if Americans weren't eating all the food, somehow famine in other parts of the world would be remedied?


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> Surely you're not so ignorant as to think that if Americans weren't eating all the food, somehow famine in other parts of the world would be remedied?


I am not. And I understand that obesity does not bother most people (although the huge weight loss industry they support might suggest otherwise) - but I find grossly overweight people to be very unattractive, and the wasted food our collective obesity represents (quite apart from the logistical problem you correctly cite) is a global tragedy. Further, our collective insurance premiums and other healthcare dollars are going in large proportion to those of similarly large proportion - so I can state with sad assurance that I find the obesity of excess to be vile. I don't apologize for my feelings, but I'm sorry they make you unhappy. My point in bringing this up was simply that "vile" is a pretty harsh term for a mode of dress - I prefer to reserve such terms for issues of much greater significance. And I find it somewhere between amusing and annoying that people can be that concerned about one aspect of appearance (e.g. clothing) while totally ignoring others of equal or greater societal import.

There are many who find bearded men (of which I have been one for 48 years) to be unattractive. Some of us simply find things to be unpleasant (or worse) that others tolerate and even embrace. I have friends who are offended by those of us who spend more than $50 on a watch. They firmly believe that our social contract requires that we wear cheap watches and use the marginal spend for charitable purposes. Interestingly, one couple with whom we've been very close for years and who are quite vocal about such things when observing others wear a Rolex and a Breitling - "but we bought these when they were much cheaper..."

I must also point out that obesity secondary to medical conditions, while aesthetically unpleasant to me, is not in the category of "obesity of excess". And I have a problem with those who criticize the poor for eating fast and/or junk food. Of course they could eat McSalad instead - but it's a bit harder to criticize those besieged by problems for trying to enjoy a few decadent bites than it is to be angered by those who would be role models for society.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

bluesman said:


> don't apologize for my feelings, but I'm sorry they make you unhappy.


Ah, unrepentant bigotry. Delightful.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Ah, good, a totally off-topic and gratuitous jab at overweight people, the last demographic group it is socially acceptable to disparage on the basis of pure prejudice. Surely you're not so ignorant as to think that if Americans weren't eating all the food, somehow famine in other parts of the world would be remedied?


Cuffdaddy, isn't that a teeny tiny bit harsh? Although I concede that bluesman did allow his point to degenerate into a rather haranguing party political broadcast, wasn't the germ of the idea reasonable? That vileness is subjective?

Also, there are *many *demographic groups who consider themselves the last acceptable victims of social prejudice, I do not believe that obese people (one of the few stigmatised groups who can easily transcend their burden i.e. diet) may claim that honour.


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> Ah, unrepentant bigotry. Delightful.


Bigotry is as excessively negative a term as is vile. I find obesity physically unattractive (OK - very unattractive). But I don't discriminate against obese people - I simply wish they'd lose weight. Much of my own family is obese, as are many of my friends, coworkers, bandmates etc. I still love my family and friends, value my colleagues, and have excellent relationships with some very fat people in my organization (as evidenced by my 360 reviews).

I don't like the way fat people look. Others here don't like the way ripped jeans and mesh t-shirts look. It's just physical appearance. De gustibus non est disputandum. But ya' doesn't have ta' call it vile......


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Better look out. Us fatsos are going to hunt you down. We're hungry.


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

Orsini said:


> Better look out. Us fatsos are going to hunt you down. We're hungry.


I love ya, man - but I'm worried sick about ya!


----------



## g3dahl (Aug 26, 2011)

Hmmm. Don't they say that black is "slimming"?

:devil:


----------



## Atterberg (Mar 11, 2012)

I feel a bit snobby now when I see a black suit and feel compelled to tell the guy he would look even sharper in a navy one.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

_As per Merriam-Webster:
_
*vile*: morally despicable or abhorrent; physically repulsive; of little worth or account; tending to degrade; disgustingly or utterly bad

Bluesman took issue with my use of the term "vile" relative to clothing, but my actual sentence was:

"Americans have taken their style and culture cues from the most vile elements in our society."

I was being far more expansive in ascribing "vileness" than simply with regard to clothing; I was commenting on American culture in general. Clothing, music, film, television, literature, language, mores, habits, et al.

Please refrain from beating me with the relativity/subjectivity club. I'm not quite ready to ascribe to the "nothing matters" or the "everything is equivalent" solipsistic mode of thinking...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tiger said:


> _As per Merriam-Webster:
> _
> *vile*: morally despicable or abhorrent; physically repulsive; of little worth or account; tending to degrade; disgustingly or utterly bad
> 
> ...


is that solipsism......? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> is that solipsism......? :icon_scratch:


One's the noun version, the other is an adjective...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tiger said:


> One's the noun version, the other is an adjective...


exculpate my brief and self promoted aqusition of AAAC's professorship of linguistics but, am I supposed to gain clarity from this response? :redface:


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Cuffdaddy, isn't that a teeny tiny bit harsh? Although I concede that bluesman did allow his point to degenerate into a rather haranguing party political broadcast, wasn't the germ of the idea reasonable? That vileness is subjective?
> 
> Also, there are *many *demographic groups who consider themselves the last acceptable victims of social prejudice, I do not believe that obese people (one of the few stigmatised groups who can easily transcend their burden i.e. diet) may claim that honour.


Regardless of whether it was "harsh," it was accurate. I have taken no part in the discussion about "vile," and don't care about that. What I care about is the ungentlemanly and mean-spirited jabs at fat people.

Perhaps it is different in the UK, but unkind remarks about how "ugly" and "vile" any group is are likely to get an individual fired, sued, and/or ostracized. Substitute almost any other characteristic for "fat" in this discussion and you'll see my point. "I find short people unattractive to look at." Is that acceptable?

You and bluesman seem to have the view (common among people who have never had real weight issues in their life) that the characteristic is as easily mutable as changing clothes, or is simply the result of thousands of bad decisions. In fact, the scientific evidence is mounting that genetics is somewhere between 60 and 85% of the source of obesity.

Can a strong genetic tendency towards weight gain be resisted? Yes, with a tremendous effort. I lost about 60 pounds several years ago, and have kept most of it off. I eat NO sugar. I eat very few simple carbs. My default lunch is salad. I get up at 5:30 am at least once a week to be absolutely savaged by a professional trainer. I walk many miles every week. I have to deal with a strong predisposition towards weight gain every single day of my life. I am still heavier than I would like.

"one of the few stigmatised groups who can *easily *transcend their burden i.e. diet" This is a laughably stupid remark. Do you not think that if a fat person could EASILY no longer be fat that there would be any fat people?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

bluesman said:


> Bigotry is as excessively negative a term as is vile. I find obesity physically unattractive (OK - very unattractive). But I don't discriminate against obese people - I simply wish they'd lose weight. Much of my own family is obese, as are many of my friends, coworkers, bandmates etc. I still love my family and friends, value my colleagues, and have excellent relationships with some very fat people in my organization (as evidenced by my 360 reviews).
> 
> I don't like the way fat people look. Others here don't like the way ripped jeans and mesh t-shirts look. It's just physical appearance. De gustibus non est disputandum. But ya' doesn't have ta' call it vile......


*Do you seriously not understand the moral and ethical difference between expressing a negative view about an inanimate object (a piece of clothing) and about a group of people?

*By the way, "some of my best friends are ____" rarely gets people off the hook when the ugliness of their prejudices against other groups is exposed. I wouldn't count on it working here, either.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Regardless of whether it was "harsh," it was accurate. I have taken no part in the discussion about "vile," and don't care about that. What I care about is the ungentlemanly and mean-spirited jabs at fat people.
> 
> Perhaps it is different in the UK, but unkind remarks about how "ugly" and "vile" any group is are likely to get an individual fired, sued, and/or ostracized. Substitute almost any other characteristic for "fat" in this discussion and you'll see my point. "I find short people unattractive to look at." Is that acceptable?
> 
> ...


cuffdaddy you presume too much, I fear. I did *not* abuse the obese and I *do* have a long-term issue with my own weight. You would be shocked if you saw how little I eat a day, allow me to assure you.

Please, I do not wish to argue with my respected fellow member and *absolutely* I do not feel bias towards the overweight.

I do take issue with this point though: most, perhaps not all (and I sympathise with and applaud you if you are trying so hard) but most people who are obese simply eat too much and too much of the wrong food.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> exculpate my brief and self promoted aqusition of AAAC's professorship of linguistics but, am I supposed to gain clarity from this response? :redface:


I'm sorry, I misunderstood your initial query.

I used "solipsism" in this manner: Often, people who are relativistic/subjective in their thinking tend to emphasize the self more than anything else; such egocentrism when extreme is indeed solipsistic.

Hope that made sense...sorry for the confusion and imprecision!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Shaver said:


> cuffdaddy you presume too much, I fear. I did *not* abuse the obese


I understand. That came from another member. But I disagreed with many of your remarks, for the reasons I set forth above.



> I do take issue with this point though: most, perhaps not all (and I sympathise with and applaud you if you are trying so hard) but most people who are obese simply eat too much and too much of the wrong food.


Of course that's true, insofar as it goes. But it's so oversimplified as to be totally misleading. It ignore the fact that two different people with similar activity levels can eat significantly different quantities of calories and get very disparate results. It ignores as well the differing satiety/hunger/control mechanisms that can go "wrong" in people, making it far harder for one person to push away from the table than another. The reductionist "you should eat less" view is the one that has been the dominant view of the medical establishment during the 60 years when obesity has been rising to flood levels.

In light of these facts, I don't think the fact that being overweight is a somewhat-mutable characteristic can excuse abuse or bias against it and those who unhappily suffer its effects.


----------



## g3dahl (Aug 26, 2011)

In light of the entire discussion of the appropriateness of wearing black as day wear, it is interesting to note how little difference there can be between certain colors, depending upon the lighting and fabrics. Hanging side by side in my closet are my black formalwear garments, a dark charcoal BB MTM and navy blazers. In the available light, it is not all that easy to tell the colors apart. I usually have to look at the cuff buttons and/or lapels to make sure I'm not grabbing the wrong thing to wear.

The office manager in my building has sometimes complimented my "nice black suit" when I was really wearing charcoal or navy. 

I can see the difference, of course, and I agree with the traditions of permanent style. But it does seem ironic that such a subtle thing can make between something being wearable or not, for example, the black 3B SB suit that I used to wear occasionally before I started learning about clothes. Now it awaits a trip to GW.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> I do take issue with this point though: most, perhaps not all (and I sympathise with and applaud you if you are trying so hard) but most people who are obese simply eat too much and too much of the wrong food.


I very much agree with this: For most people, I do think it is a case of consuming fewer calories and increasing physical activity.(*)



CuffDaddy said:


> The reductionist "you should eat less" view is the one that has been the dominant view of the medical establishment during the 60 years when obesity has been rising to flood levels.


I'm not quite sure of the point being made here. I have to say I think the main culprits for the explosion in obesity are poor education and parenting and an 'instant gratification' culture that has forgotten about the traditional values of moderation and restraint. I fully accept that losing weight or keeping it off is a more difficult challenge for some than others due to how different metabolisms work (and some people may comfort eat because all is not well in their lives, &c.). But I don't think the blame really lies with the 'medical establishment'. I'm not biased against fat people, but I do think in most cases it boils down to individual accountability / self-discipline.

(*) I accept of course that some people's obesity is attributable to a 'physical' medical condition, but the different levels of obesity in continental Europe contrasted to say the UK and the US would suggest that this is a small minority.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Balfour said:


> I'm not quite sure of the point being made here. I have to say I think the main culprits for the explosion in obesity are poor education and parenting and an 'instant gratification' culture that has forgotten about the traditional values of moderation and restraint. I fully accept that losing weight or keeping it off is a more difficult challenge for some than others due to how different metabolisms work (and some people may comfort eat because all is not well in their lives, &c.). But I don't think the blame really lies with the 'medical establishment'. I'm not biased against fat people, but I do think in most cases it boils down to individual accountability / self-discipline.


The narrow point being made was that the "eat less, exercise more" advice of the medical community has proven, in the real world, not to be a viable strategy for the majority who struggle with weight. From a public health viewpoint, it makes no difference whether this is because of personal ethical/moral fiber failings of the patients or not. The point of medical advice is not to provide moral instruction; it is to improve and/or extend the lives of the patients. When the advice does not produce the desired results, it is a failed strategy.

The "individual accountability" lens that you advocate has been an OBSTACLE to better weight-managment techniques. It has prevented many practitioners from accepting that different people need different approaches, and has engendered a lack of empathy with a patient that has been putting forth a great deal of effort to little effect. It has also caused a great many overweight persons to conclude that they are beyond help (by virtue of being too weak) and simply capitulate.

You are correct that miseducation has been instrumental in the rise of obesity, but the medical community has been behind a great deal of that as well. In particular, the "low fat" advice has led people to focus on fat and ignore the sugars and simple carbs that foul up insulin systems, causing weight gain and uncontrollable cravings for many. Industrial food manufacture and marketing has done a great deal as well, with sugar and corn syrup hidden in the most unbelievable places.

All this is rather far afield, of course. The real point is that some people feel free to call overweight people "vile" because they view overweight-ness as being self-inflicted. And I think it doesn't matter what the excuse is: calling a large (no pun intended) portion of the population "vile" is grossly ignorant and mean-spirited.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

^^^ I'm conscious we may be straying into Interchange territory, so I will try to keep my response brief.

First, I don't think you intended to associate me with the "vile" description other posters have used and this certainly doesn't reflect my view.

Second, I think obesity is qualitatively distinct from the sorts of discrimination that - certainly in the UK - are prohibited in law. Such legal protection typically relates to certain inherent characteristics that people cannot alter (e.g. race, sex, &c.). 

Third, obesity is self-inflicted in the sense that it is not (save I would suggest in a very small number of cases) an inherent characteristic but is a product of people's inability to restrict what they eat to a quantity that will maintain their weight. Those who are unable to do so deserve sympathy, but the more accurate comparison is perhaps with those who abuse alcohol or drugs (in that people may fall into habits of alcohol or drug abuse for psychological reasons, and some people may be particularly susceptible to addiction).

I'm not unsympathetic at all. My metabolism means I need to be very careful about not gaining weight, and I have been several stone overweight at an earlier point in my life. But I do think we have lost sight of individual responsibility here - people seem to be very keen to blame others or society or the medical profession, &c. for something that ultimately is - in the vast majority of cases - within their control. Obesity was nothing like the problem it is now in Western societies even 30 years ago.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tiger said:


> I'm sorry, I misunderstood your initial query.
> 
> I used "solipsism" in this manner: Often, people who are relativistic/subjective in their thinking tend to emphasize the self more than anything else; such egocentrism when extreme is indeed solipsistic.
> 
> Hope that made sense...sorry for the confusion and imprecision!


Thanks Tiger, I understand. A solipsist is perchance unlikely to discuss a subject via such a nebulous medium as an internet forum, though, I imagine. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> I understand. That came from another member. But I disagreed with many of your remarks, for the reasons I set forth above.
> 
> Of course that's true, insofar as it goes. But it's so oversimplified as to be totally misleading. It ignore the fact that two different people with similar activity levels can eat significantly different quantities of calories and get very disparate results. It ignores as well the differing satiety/hunger/control mechanisms that can go "wrong" in people, making it far harder for one person to push away from the table than another. The reductionist "you should eat less" view is the one that has been the dominant view of the medical establishment during the 60 years when obesity has been rising to flood levels.
> 
> In light of these facts, I don't think the fact that being overweight is a somewhat-mutable characteristic can excuse abuse or bias against it and those who unhappily suffer its effects.


As I extract myself from this discussion in as gentlemanly a fashion as I can muster and because I am able to perceive that this is an inflammatory subject for you might I note the following;

"true (insofar as it goes)...... totally misleading" is an incongruity of logic.

The appetite/satiety reflex is normally disturbed by factors which may be easily managed.

You have elected to disregard my admission of considerable personal experience in this matter.

That 'you should eat less' is the view held whilst obesity becomes an epidemic does not negate the view, rather considering the dietary choices I observe being made by those around me I consider that it rather reinforces it.

Finally, I wish you well in your own efforts and sincerely hope that you are able to achieve and maintain a weight with which you are comfortable.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Balfour said:


> Second, I think obesity is qualitatively distinct from the sorts of discrimination that - certainly in the UK - are prohibited in law. Such legal protection typically relates to certain inherent characteristics that people cannot alter (e.g. race, sex, &c.).
> 
> Third, obesity is self-inflicted in the sense that it is not (save I would suggest in a very small number of cases) an inherent characteristic but is a product of people's inability to restrict what they eat to a quantity that will maintain their weight. Those who are unable to do so deserve sympathy, but the more accurate comparison is perhaps with those who abuse alcohol or drugs (in that people may fall into habits of alcohol or drug abuse for psychological reasons, and some people may be particularly susceptible to addiction).


Your "second" illustrates another of my points precisely: discrimination against obesity is about the last bastion of _acceptable_ discrimination.

I agree that addiction is a reasonably good analogy, in that personal behavior influenced by out-of-whack brain chemistry is the root of the problem. Of course, what do professionals advise any addict to do: abstain from their addictive substance entirely, and try to stay out of proximity to it. Unfortunately, that doesn't work with food. Nobody expects a heroin junky to be able to just take a few small doses a day without ever getting truly high, yet that's precisely what a person with tendencies towards being overweight is required to do. It's possible, but it's very tough. And failure is certainly no grounds for name-calling, contempt, or other such bigotry.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Shaver said:


> "true (insofar as it goes)...... totally misleading" is an incongruity of logic.


No, it isn't. It's a fairly common situation. It's true, insofar as it goes, that the faster a car is going, the more severe the likely injuries to its occupants in the event of a crash. But, if that comment is made in the context of a discussion about whether it's wise to drive 35mph on an American interstate where the average car is traveling 75, it's very misleading. Traveling substantially slower than traffic greatly increases the risk of a crash, and therefore injuries.



Shaver said:


> You have elected to disregard my admission of considerable personal experience in this matter.


I may have under-read the intended strength of your statement. If you've struggled mightily and prevailed, I congratulate you. I find it difficult to imagine that anyone who really has struggled with the issue thinks it is "easily" resolved, but maybe you just meant that the resolution was simple (even if it required a great deal of effort).



Shaver said:


> That 'you should eat less' is the view held whilst obesity becomes an epidemic does not negate the view, rather considering the dietary choices I observe being made by those around me I consider that it rather reinforces it.


Again, it's easy to say "eat less." The evidence is overwhelming that, as a public health strategy, it's pretty ineffective; and that suggests that the problem is fairly complex.

As for the subject being an "inflammatory" one, it is and it is not. Discussions, such as the one between the two of us, as to the source of the problem, best approaches to solving/overcoming, etc., are not inflammatory in any way. Discussions that begin to cast the question as a moral one get silly rather quickly, given the number of men and women of sterling character who have been fat. But my ire only gets roused when people become openly abusive and pretend as though they are entitled to act that way. Nobody can be expected to take insults lying down.

But you're not near the line with me. As far as I'm concerned, we can part friends in this thread.


----------



## Mox (May 30, 2012)

From my own personal experience, and observation of others, my opinion is that "eating less" is part of the solution—but within the context of eating less of the wrong things. Total calories ingested matter, but to avoid the addiction aspect mentioned, I think a stronger solution involves changing what we eat. The total bulk can actually increase while the calorie intake decreases.

Due to health issue, I became very sedentary for a time. My exertions were not able to keep up with my intake, and so I put on fat (and lost muscle). My weight got to a point that I felt I had to do something. From past experience, I knew that moderation was not the answer. I did not simply have a small piece of dessert. Once that taste was tickled, I wanted more and more.

I eliminated all sugar-related items, including simple carbs. Not only did I cut out cookies and cake, but bread and the like as well. The first few weeks were difficult, to put it mildly, but after that, it became surprisingly easy. The process was similar to when I eliminated caffeine from my diet.

After losing 50 lbs, I now eat whenever I want and as much as I want, and maintain my weight. The key, I believe, is what I'm eating. I often hear from people, "Oh, I could never do that!" The addiction for them is so strong that they don't even consider the attempt.

I understand the how and why behind that mindset. Thankfully there are some groups that are trying to educate the public—not just on the specifics of a good diet, but how to implement it. It often takes a mufti-disciplinary approach, and a lot of people don't even want to listen, so it's difficult to gain traction.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> .....But you're not near the line with me. As far as I'm concerned, we can part friends in this thread.


Thank you, I appreciate your saying so. :icon_smile:


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

g3dahl said:


> Hmmm. Don't they say that black is "slimming"?
> 
> :devil:


Dark colours are slimming. Navy and charcoal are just as slimming as black.


----------



## srmd22 (Jun 30, 2009)

Wait... What was this thread about again?


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

srmd22 said:


> Wait... What was this thread about again?


This thread is an unmitigated disaster.

I like Black a lot - I wear it less frequently now. It always has seemed to me to be a bit more of an urban color and perhaps thats the setting where you may be able to get away with it better. I think it was a bit more popular in the 90s than it is now. Having said that I think it works better for night time wear. I am also more inclined to wear it seasonally in winter months - of course the days are shorter. Not my favorite day time color - great for dinner, the club, dancing, etc.... Perhaps not super easy to match unless you want to look like a waiter. Lavender is a nice color for it.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Black shouldn't be worn during hot summers cause they don't reflect the sun well and you'll wind up sweating a lot.


----------

