# Why do we wear ties?



## paololital (Jul 26, 2012)

I've been pondering about that. Ties are something we take for granted in our everyday attire. But if you think about it, they're the only item of male clothing that doesn't really have a function - it's strictly an accessory. I know that it's part of a long tradition dating back to Serbian mercenaries and so on. But the point still persists: men don't really NEED a tie although the tradition is still strong enough to justify it.
Personally, I never wear a tie in warmer months, but like wearing woolen ones in the winter - they keep my neck warm. I've been trying to think about other more pragmatic reasons like that, and I'm curious about other members thoughts on the matter.
Besides warmth, the only other practical advantages a tie could IN THEORY have, that I could think of, are:
hiding the sight of your chest hair poking through the gaping between each button (applies to shirts too tight and to werewolves), 
catch any food spilling that could ruin your white shirt but would be hidden in your tie pattern (which is disgusting but I heard that this is the very reason why chefs' trousers are houndstooth), 
hide your buttons (this one was explained to me by a friend of mine as being the purpose of ties but I failed to understand the logic behind it).


I'm sorry for the "thumb down" next to the thread title, I must have inadvertently pressed something and don't seem to be able to modify it.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Because they look good.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

The idea that clothing needs to have a utilitarian function - it needs to _do_ something - in order to be justified is a very recent construct. Humans have been wearing unnecessary clothing for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.


----------



## salgy (May 1, 2009)

paololital said:


> (which is disgusting but I heard that this is the very reason why chefs' trousers are houndstooth)


this would make sense if chef's didn't traditionally wear white jackets!

in the classic french kitchen brigade (or hierarchy) the color for a savory chef's pants traditionally are black. a pastry chef or baker are white... the common cook wears hounds-tooth to distinguish him as a common cook


----------



## efdll (Sep 11, 2008)

"Because they look good." Indeed. The best answer. Two forces are at work in clothing, utilitarian and aesthetic. The trick, perhaps even the gift, is to marry them. Whoever manages this has what we call style. That's where a third force intervenes: tradition. It is the crutch on which we who don't have perfect style lean. Dress traditionally -- or trad -- and it's hard to go wrong. Trouble is that tradition is not what it used to be. Today, the man in perfectly traditional clothes, the man wearing, say, a tie, stands out in a crowd wearing rags the provenance of which contradicts the political views of that very crowd, don't get me started. The man in the tie will be "dressed up", one of the most stupid concepts our culture has spawned. The man's choices, therefore, are to: 1) dress stupidly like everyone else, 2) dress well and put up with the comments and stares . . .
. . . or, 3) dress traditionally, tie and all, and reply to "dressed-up" comments with this calling card, https://www.etsy.com/listing/78181967/engraved-f-off-calling-cards-pack-of-20. It doesn't take lobsters on your pants to tell the world to GTH. It just takes chutzpah (or sprezzatura). And a tie.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

The "function" is:
- Decorative (you can use a color and pattern that would be overwhelming if it were a whole shirt or jacket)
- Status / role indicator (depending on the situation: white collar status, or showing respect)
- Affiliation indicator (various stripes and symbols)
- Phallic symbol

The original post seems to be based on the assumption that symbolic (or communicative) functions aren't functions. They are. Slightly off track, but consider various animals who have evolved quite dramatic symbolic appendages (generally gender related): peacocks' feathers, various sorts of antlers, tufts, colorations and the like. These all have no function other than to indicate something, often at some "cost" in biological terms.


----------



## andcounting (Apr 7, 2009)

Such good responses here. I'll add a bit.

I'm with Aristotle and not Plato that a man's soul and body are one (an essential tradidtion of the west). Our bodies and their adornments communicate something because they're not just robots for the mind. Modern fashions communicate the philosophies of life of the wearers: comfort, utilitarianism, disdain for "useless" things like goodness, beauty, truth. Traditional clothing communicates respect for forefathers ("because my grandfather did it" use to be a good reason to do something before the pride and imprudence of youth was idoloized), respect for the ceremonial of life, respect for others. I firmly think the selfishness, disdain of tradition and worship of comfort of the modern age is most typified in clothing.

I'm also only 27, so what do I know.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

efdll said:


> It doesn't take lobsters on your pants to tell the world to GTH. It just takes chutzpah (or sprezzatura). And a tie.


Ideally, this tie.


----------



## salgy (May 1, 2009)

Topsider, based on your signature, you would be happier with this one!


----------



## closerlook (Sep 3, 2008)

it also covers the buttons presenting a complete or clean look??


----------



## paololital (Jul 26, 2012)

Even pocket squares, which are considered more an accessory that ties are, could be (in thoery) functional. I've actually took out my PS when needed to use it as a regular bandana or kerchief before. A tie is for decoration only (and it seems to me that most people here who replied agree on that), and it just occurred to me that it is the only decoration in a mens outfit that it is not only accepted but indeed required in most cases. I had never thought about it in that respect.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I wear a tie sometimes to feel good about myself and to look professional.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

I think you got your answers. Besides the phallic aspect, the necktie is the one accessory in addition to the pocket square that you can express your own personality - the remainder of the ensemble traditionally is a uniform - navy suit, white shirt, etc..

Neckties are an instant symbol of authority and professionalism.

Plus the tie gives a vertical line right down the middle of our torso giving an image of being taller and thinner.

The "anti" movement came from gentlemen not having the correct size shirt collar!


----------



## paololital (Jul 26, 2012)

Thanks to everyone for the answers. I think this could have seemed silly talking, but the fact is that recently I said the same things to my father and he replied that he never even thought about it. So I thought it could have been food for the (sartorial) mind.
Andy, could I ask you what you mean by "anti movement"?


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

The "anti" movement is people who don't like wearing ties, usually because they think they're uncomfortable.

There are plenty in the medical community. They cite all sorts of questionable studies about vectors for infection, etc. to justify their hippie/slacker tendencies.

Agree with Andy. If you have a properly-sized shirt collar, wearing a tie is as comfortable as not wearing a tie.


----------



## paololital (Jul 26, 2012)

Topsider said:


> The "anti" movement is people who don't like wearing ties, usually because they think they're uncomfortable.


I appreciate the explanation. And I agree with the rest. Besides, doctors and those in the medical field could have another very practical use for the tie: a makeshift hemostatic latch!


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Its function is to point and draw attention to the wearer's beaming countenance.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

A tie also makes you feel important and more noticed.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Orsini said:


> Its function is to point and draw attention to the wearer's beaming countenance.


Indeed so, but does the tie not also cover the unsightly button placket of a mans shirt. That column of buttons can be the most unsightly and distracting feature of a shirts design. Wearing a tie enables a gentleman to present a more finished appearance!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

a tie can also get you the girls.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> Indeed so, but does the tie not also cover the unsightly button placket of a mans shirt. That column of buttons can be the most unsightly and distracting feature of a shirts design. Wearing a tie enables a gentleman to present a more finished appearance!


Nonsense. I just replace all of my shirt buttons with a single, continuous strip of Velcro. No broken line of unsightly buttons to speak of :tongue2:.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL...and from a functionality perspective, some of we seniors can really appreciate the ease of using Velcro closures!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Andy said:


> I think you got your answers. Besides the phallic aspect, the necktie is the one accessory in addition to the pocket square that you can express your own personality


phallic aspect? I look at my tie and then I look at my *ahem* well 'you-know-what' and I'm really not getting the connection. Andy may we expect a proud revelation from you? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Copied and pasted from Psychology Today:
Of course, there are those who will swear that a long, wide tie with silk that feels like "living skin" is really just representative of the male genitalia. "The tie is the most obvious kind of a phallic symbol," says George D. Goldman, Ph.D., a psychologist and psychoanalyst who practices in New York City. "It hangs down in front of a man like a phallic symbol -- but that's just a cliche.
"Like Sigmund once said, 'Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.' And some ties are just ties." But just in case, women are glad that those lanky, skinny ties are out of style.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

drlivingston said:


> Copied and pasted from Psychology Today:
> Of course, there are those who will swear that a long, wide tie with silk that feels like "living skin" is really just representative of the male genitalia. "The tie is the most obvious kind of a phallic symbol," says George D. Goldman, Ph.D., a psychologist and psychoanalyst who practices in New York City. "It hangs down in front of a man like a phallic symbol -- but that's just a cliche.
> "Like Sigmund once said, 'Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.' And some ties are just ties." But just in case, women are glad that those lanky, skinny ties are out of style.


Dr Livingstone, I presume? Forgive me - an irresistable, although somewhat predictable, jape.

I was, of course, merely playful in my response to Andy.

If however the subject is to broaden to incorporate a more serious mien then I would be forced to advise that I find the notion of phallic symbolism really rather pitiful. It is nothing more than the intellectual equivalent of laughing at flatulence or sniggering at ladies' breasts.

Although a well executed cuillère can occasionally prompt a bout of tie envy. 

As an aside I would most assuredly prefer to be guided by the wisom of, say, Groucho Marx than Sigmund Fraud (sic).


----------



## imabsolutelyunique (Jul 17, 2012)

That is what I get from reading



Starch said:


> The "function" is:
> 
> - Phallic symbol


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

We can also wear ties to stand out in the crowd.


----------



## efdll (Sep 11, 2008)

OK, I'll jump in. Phallic symbol? Perhaps. But why go there? There are less crass erotic functions. Like some species' built-in attention getters, a tie is a flash that says check me out. I don't think it says check out my equipment. I mean, what's the hurry? And undoing one's tie, as in more formal eras a woman letting down her hair, means intimacy may not be inevitable, but it's certainly an option. It's too early in the game for phallic anything, it's the game. Of courtship, of seduction. The most exciting game, literally, and, yes, the excitement is phallic. But keep it in your pants for now. Be happy that you picked the right tie and wore it gracefully. If you're lucky someone else will loosen that knot, and I don't mean your valet, old chap. The pleasure of those desired fingers undoing the silk up close and personal is pretty close to heaven.


----------



## Pink and Green (Jul 22, 2009)

I don't think you should be allowed to ask this question on the Trad forum. It's like walking into Wrigley Field and saying "So what's the big deal with this baseball thing anyway?"


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

That was a priceless comment, Shaver... I am not sold on the tie being a phallic symbol. However, it did cause me much anguish when I accidentally caught my tie in my zipper.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

To provide full employment to tie factory workers worldwide; to reward the shareholders of tie making companies.... Oh, wait, this is just a rehash of my response to the 'Why do we wear pants?' thread. Never mind.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Sometimes a tie is just a tie!!


----------



## paololital (Jul 26, 2012)

*spelling*

Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant. I do belong to the category of tie weareres and my questioning was, if you will, a somewhat silly intellectual provocation on the subject. I, as the majority of fellow members here, wear ties just out of a consolidated routine. Thinking about what's behind it makes for an interesting chat, as we got a colorful array of reasons and motivations, going from sticking to tradition to advertising your "man parts" :icon_smile_big:.



Pink and Green said:


> I don't think you should be allowed to ask this question on the Trad forum. It's like walking into Wrigley Field and saying "So what's the big deal with this baseball thing anyway?"


Oops, I wrote my reason for editing in the title space. Forgive me, it has been a long day!


----------



## Clothes Horse's Mouth (Nov 23, 2012)

A quick 10-minute count on the High Street in a small town in UK mustered only 2 gentlemen wearing ties. These were a bank manager and an estate agent. Tie-wearers are definitely in the minority, and seem mainly job-related. Certain jobs have certain "uniforms", defined or implied.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Clothes Horse's Mouth said:


> A quick 10-minute count on the High Street in a small town in UK mustered only 2 gentlemen wearing ties. These were a bank manager and an estate agent. Tie-wearers are definitely in the minority, and seem mainly job-related. Certain jobs have certain "uniforms", defined or implied.


It's not a plebiscite.


----------

