# Root cause of the trend towards sloppy dressing



## jonlien (Jul 14, 2005)

I see a general decline in proper attire everywhere I go. Granted I don't fly around the world often, but I do fly once a month within the US. 

I see it in airports, restaurants and the streets. This is a disturbing trend because dressing poorly in public is indicative of a lack of respect for other people. 

When did people started to dress so badly? What was the turning point in history when people decided to look like slobs? 

All comments are welcome!


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jonlien_
> 
> When did people start to dress so badly? What was the turning point in history when people decided to look like slobs?
> 
> All comments are welcome!


In the late 1960s, rebellion, peace and love, anti-establishmentarianism, long hair, barefoot sandals, reefer...

My hypothesis is that you will see a reversal of this trend in the future. Just like most trends, there are cycles and phases. Once we hit bottom for casual/sloppy dressing (are we there yet?), we will start seeing more dressing up. I think we already are to a limited extent. See the return to more formal business attire after the casual dotcom era.


----------



## montecristo (Feb 17, 2004)

October 18, 1964.


----------



## Trying (Feb 21, 2006)

Here's an example of how you can wear fine clothing and still look like a slob.










I used to blame it on youth. But then I watched middle age men become true slobs in public.

The one thing that makes me want to gag is sitting in a restaurant and watching some guy walk by in shorts, tank top and sandals/thongs...hairy legs, hairy arms, and a gorilla back.

The sad part is that it has become so prevasive.


----------



## Trying (Feb 21, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by EL72_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree that there seems to be somewhat of a reversal in the business world. I see fewer people in the "business casual" mode. More and more are turning to sports coats and ties instead of the T-shirts and mock-whatever-they are things.

I'm not sure I like the reverse trend though...I was enjoying being the only guy in a coat and tie at the Monday morning meetings...I was in outside sales so it was acceptable.


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

IMHO, the cause is egalitarianism, the stupid obsession with equality. 

Many people reject sartorial traditions because they fear wearing proper clothing might make other people feel inferior or under-priviliged, or cause others to perceive them as 'square,' arrogant, 'hoity toity,' snobbish, stiff, formal, etc. 

The result? Dumbed-down dressing. If everyone sports the same sloppy, mass-prole fashions, there's no chance of anyone feeling uncomfortable, resentful, or offended (at least where clothing is concerned). 

The modern world is the enemy of true, authentic diversity.


----------



## LabelKing (Sep 3, 2002)

I agree, it is democracy's fault.

Taking cue from Ortega y Gasset, the masses are mediocre and ultimately quite vulgar.

_"Minorities are individual or groups of individuals especially qualified. The masses are the collection of people not specially qualified." _

*'Naturally, love's the most distant possibility.'*

*Georges Bataille*


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

I agree it occured during the '60's although I missed out on that decade. I'm not too optimistic as some of you may be regarding a move towards better dressing. My humble opinion is that at least here in the states we are more concerned with fitting in then standing out. So if the majority dresses down, then that's how most people are going to dress as well. We may like to think of ourselves as having arrived at a distinct individual lifestyle but when you look around so many of us dress, talk, and think alike. We listen to top 40 because that's what everyone listens to or whatever is in the charts on the country/western side or the "alternative" (which isn't very alternative anymore)stations. I'm sure we've all experienced going someplace and having everyone ask why we are so dressed up when in fact we may only be dressed up slightly more so. I once posted here long ago how one summer when I planned to visit my sister. Normally in the summer I'd wear linen pants and light cotton or linen shirts that I roll the sleeves up a little and keep the top two buttons undone. A very casual look but still considered by most to be dressed up. So my sister tells me during a phone conversation "just wear shorts and T-shirts". I love shorts and T-shirts at the beach, at the gym, when I wash my car but when I get together with family and we are going to hit the town I dress like I'd normally dress. I took her comment to mean "Don't dress nicer then us because you make us look bad and/or uncomfortable". So as long as we are like everyone else we feel better and we make others feel better since we are all validating one another.


----------



## Trying (Feb 21, 2006)

Hmmm...well stated and thought out.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

I dont necessarily blame the flower children...most of them grew up to become conservative mainstream America...I blame it on this underlying notion that "everybody is special", and the fact that people actually believe it (I'm sure I'll get pounced on for that one)...anyway...people want to believe that the conventional rules of society don't apply to them, they are too good to dress up...

They'd rather be "comfortable", I never understood that one, people think that wearing stiff heavy jeans, and unbreathable synthetic sweatshirts is comfortable??? They think wearing some sweatshop made claude hoppers with some basketball players name on them is comfortable??? They think that an itchy old ball cap is comfortable???

They truly believe that they are rogues, flauting (sp?) convention in the name of this weird anti-status quo movement, they don't need to conform...they feel that they are too special and the norm is beneath them...the thing they fail to realise is that in all their catering to their own egos, they dont stop and see that every other Joe is thinking the exact same thing...they all think that they're the only one too good to fall in with the rest of the "boring, milquetoast, stuffed shirts"...the problem is they are slobs, pure and simple, they actually think there is nothing wrong with dressing the way they do, and in turn, doing a dis-service to their society by failing to show their fellow man the courtesy of at least trying to make an effort to be presentable, and what's worse than that, society actually accepts that...

...it's sad really...

*****
[image]https://radio.weblogs.com/0119318/Screenshots/rose.jpg[/image]"See...What I'm gonna do is wear a shirt only once, and then give it right away to the laundry...eh?
A new shirt every day!!!"​


----------



## acidicboy (Feb 17, 2006)

more than anything, i believe economics drove sartorialism down to the gutter. people hark back to the 30s when everybody were well-dressed- but those were the days when clothes were still custom-made by talented albeit underpaid tailors. in the age of globalization, where mass production can drive down the price of, say an old navy t-shirt to less than $5, an "average joe" would definitely have no problem then with wearing that instead of a nice borelli jacket over a charvet shirt.

oh, that and those sloppy-dressed "rock stars" and celebrities who have so much influence on our pop culture.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

I believe the root cause is laziness and rearing. In general we have become a lazy society, especially the generations born post 1975-1980. The â€œGen Yâ€ and to some extent â€œGen Xâ€™rsâ€ have not had to work for anything. For a few of us â€œXâ€™rsâ€ who were raised by older parents, we are lucky and were taught some values. There is an overall lack of self-respect which I believe carries over to how people present themselves. Additionally, for every father who doesnâ€™t teach his son values, personal pride and responsibility for their actions, those same lack of values grow stronger with the sonâ€™s sons.

Though my father was strict, today I am thankful for what he taught me. I look forward to instilling the same values in my children.

Just today I had a conversation with a female co-worker about how men dress. She was adamant that men wearing suits sans ties and unbuttoned shirts (even facial stubble) was perfectly acceptable dress. In her opinion a more relaxed appearance is much more appropriate today than years ago. What this shows is looking like a slob has become acceptable.

We can only change the image of a well-dressed man, one of us at a time!


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by acidicboy_
> 
> those sloppy-dressed "rock stars" and celebrities who have so much influence on our pop culture.


Bingo!

"Never underestimate the depth of a curious mind"
Steve aka StevenRocks


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

It started the day it became acceptable to wear a short riding jacket in town. Egads! Whence the morning coat...


----------



## Long Way of Drums (Feb 15, 2006)

I long for the good old days, when men were men, when everyone was respectful as expressed through proper dress and duly obsequious etiquette, and when black people couldn't use the same drinking fountain.

"Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."

"Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughtta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keels. Makes her home."

*We will not walk in fear, one of another.*


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

and Where: Corner of Haight & Ashbury.


----------



## Aureus (Feb 27, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Old Brompton_
> 
> IMHO, the cause is egalitarianism, the stupid obsession with equality.
> 
> ...


----------



## LabelKing (Sep 3, 2002)

Who wants to look like "conservative mainstream America?"

*'Naturally, love's the most distant possibility.'*

*Georges Bataille*


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by LabelKing_
> 
> Who wants to look like "conservative mainstream America?"
> 
> ...


No one is saying conservative. But look "appropriate" for the occassion.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

These threads come up with some degree of frequency and regularity. Although it's a commonplace to blame the flower children (or "filthy hippies," if you prefer), I think a lot of the blame can be laid at the feet of the so-called "Greatest Generation." A great many of them, after four years in khaki or olive drab, espoused apparel of the most garish bad taste imaginable. Look at how retirees all-too-often dress on golf courses and elsewhere today. My uncle was a good case in point. In the photos I have of him pre-war, he dressed in accordance with the dapper elegance of the 1930s, when masculine elegance was at its height. After the war, he all too frequently wore loud, hideous apparel that made his sister (my mother) and me cringe, even as a young sprout. His father (my American grandfather) was of an era before sportswear became fashionable. Until very late in life, on weekends, he would wear an old white dress shirt and some old suit trousers. In his day, wearing a sport coat and tie to work was so daring and fashion forward that anyone who dared to do it was perceived as possibly gay or (as my grandfather would have termed it) a "filthy pansy!"


----------



## LabelKing (Sep 3, 2002)

> quote:_Originally posted by Trenditional_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think in the context and convention of today's "conservative mainstream America" appropriateness is not a particular pervasive thought.

*'Naturally, love's the most distant possibility.'*

*Georges Bataille*


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> In his day, *wearing a sport coat and tie to work * was so daring and fashion forward that anyone who dared to do it was perceived as possibly gay or (as my grandfather would have termed it) a "filthy pansy!"


I love it!


----------



## Crazytree (Feb 6, 2006)

It came from London!

_-clueless 1st year associate attorney, los angeles._


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Root cause: Human nature. Very few people are 'Nature's Gentlemen' - which are the only ones who are genuinely civilised.

If a culture does not cherish and mimic Nature's Gentlemen, then it is a barbarian culture and its days are justly numbered.

Since egalitarianism by definition cannot exalt anyone over another, Nature's gentlemen are not exalted, and therefore egalitarian societies are barbarous and doomed to fail and or become hypocritical.

Due to human nature, however, most such societies pick the latter course, and settle for being faux-egalitarian. The creed becomes an inside joke to the upper classes and a practical joke for the lower classes. The middle classes merely stare at the joke-teller with a confused and earnest expression.

With a hypocrite's attention to detail, faux-egalitarian societies are particularly eager to appear authentic. Since doing so with substance takes all of the fun out of hypocrisy, style is used instead.

Since it is easier for the person in charge of costuming to clothe the bourgeoise in rags than to clothe the proles in bespoke, the faux-egalitarian landscape becomes flecked with a diversity of slobs.

Those who don't play along are punished. [whispers] _'Of course _ the ship is sinking, but the others don't know it yet so take off the bloody life-belt before you get us trampled.'


----------



## Aureus (Feb 27, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Old Brompton_
> 
> IMHO, the cause is egalitarianism, the stupid obsession with equality.
> 
> ...


Apparently my first reply didn't work. Odd.

I disagree. The Business Suit originated in America as an expression of equality. Everyone pretty much started to look the same when they put on their suit. It became a lot harder to tell social class when everyone was wearing suits versus the then standard European form of dress where what you wore could immediately tell what class you were. America's dress was distinctly classless by comparison.


----------



## Brideshead (Jan 11, 2006)

Someone said 'London'! That may be true. 

Over the last 100 years or so the Englishman has been gradually becoming more relaxed in dress. The frock coat was worn for business in the City until the early 20th Century and was gradually replaced by the 'Lounge Suit'.

For evening, White Tie has been replaced by Black Tie (tuxedo). Or rather no tie at all with a dinner jacket!

Add in the effect of Hollywood icons of the 50s like James Dean and the shirt and tee shirt become outer garments.

So, IMO the trend had started long before the 60s and our obsession with equality.

I don't share the optimism expressed by some of you that the trend will at some point reverse. I fear it is a continuing one.

I suspect anyway that there have always been slobs. Its just that in the early 20th Century they wore suits - probably dirty, poor quality ones and with worn out shoes


----------



## Vettriano Man (Jun 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Crazytree_
> 
> It came from London!
> 
> _-clueless 1st year associate attorney, los angeles._


Excuse me! - I'm of the opinion that Woodstock started the whole crappy thing off!


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Maynard G. Krebs



"You get what you tolerate." -- Me, 2003


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> Maynard G. Krebs
> 
> "You get what you tolerate." -- Me, 2003


 Are there _any_ limits as to what we can blame on Gilligan? I think not.


----------



## Nick M (Aug 20, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Long Way of Drums_
> 
> I long for the good old days, when men were men, when everyone was respectful as expressed through proper dress and duly obsequious etiquette, and when black people couldn't use the same drinking fountain.


Do you remember a time when women couldn't vote and certain folk weren't allowed on golf courses?

Petridge Farm remembers.


----------



## Long Way of Drums (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Nick M_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know! And people dressed so much better then! It was much more civilized.

"Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."

"Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughtta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keels. Makes her home."

*We will not walk in fear, one of another.*


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by burnedandfrozen_
> 
> I once posted here long ago how one summer when I planned to visit my sister. Normally in the summer I'd wear linen pants and light cotton or linen shirts that I roll the sleeves up a little and keep the top two buttons undone. A very casual look but still considered by most to be dressed up. So my sister tells me during a phone conversation "just wear shorts and T-shirts". I love shorts and T-shirts at the beach, at the gym, when I wash my car but when I get together with family and we are going to hit the town I dress like I'd normally dress. I took her comment to mean "Don't dress nicer then us because you make us look bad and/or uncomfortable". So as long as we are like everyone else we feel better and we make others feel better since we are all validating one another.


Yeah, I've experienced that too. "Why don't you wear shorts?" Because I don't like shorts. You can go ahead and wear them if you want to, but I'll stick to nice pants or a skirt and a linen shirt. And no, I'm not "too hot in that".

*"Buy the best, and you will only cry once." - Chinese proverb*


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

The "Peacock Revolution" in the early 70's gave men a new look at what was acceptable to wear. More color more patterns. It not only opened up their minds to what was OK to wear, it open up their wives minds as well! Because men had not needed to think about what they were going to wear they had no background in selecting colors and patterns. They had to rely on their wife or what fashion mavens told them. 
Then came polyester
And then came the liesure suit![:0] And the first wave of the open collared striped (and paisley and flowers...)shirt.

Then California got its on pizza. 

And we lost our way.

The late 70's through the 80's we seemed to have found the path again. But when to econamy went south and many of us either lost our jobs or had wages frozen. Foe myself, after the birth of my son in 84 and my working wife became a stay-at-home mom in 86 a serious belt-tightening took place. I was an eager advocate of the casual office (I blame it on mid-life crisis!)Think of the savings! I will only need one wardrobe!

Ah well! At last I have returned to my senses. Now if only the rest would.

David

Everything went to hell when we let California have its own pizza.


----------



## Brideshead (Jan 11, 2006)

The revival of 'authentic' style in the 80s and the current interest in traditional styles represent mere fluctuations in the rate of decline. We will never return to a time when a Cary Grant appears in a current movie or when a Givenchy dresses the leading lady.


----------



## Mr. Di Liberti (Jan 24, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Aureus_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_the cause is egalitarianism, the stupid obsession with equality_

_The Business Suit originated in America as an expression of equality_

Doesn't the latter stand to prove the former?

_It became a lot harder to tell social class when everyone was wearing suits_

Is it any easier to tell social class now that most everyone dresses slovenly?

Rich or Poor, Young or Old, poor dress and manner have become the norm in society.

Frankly... I don't like it!

Anthony

Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage ~ Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Here are a few things that come to mind, in no particular order:

The primacy of comfort and convenience over appearance.
The primacy of cheapness over durability.
The right to look slovenly, now asserted as a democratic freedom.
Dumbing down - the reluctance of the elites to set an example.
The purchase of non-adult clothing for men by women who like them to look juvenile.
The replacement, by family retail outlets, of traditional menswear stores manned by expert staff.
A less cohesive society in which people don't care about how they appear to others.


----------



## Gong Tao Jai (Jul 7, 2005)

Rather than egalitarianism, I think the root of this is a paradigm shift. Prior to, say 1970, men wanted to project an image of success, masculinity, sophistication, accomplishment, etc.
With a change in values in the late '60s/early '70s, this changed, and ever since, men have instead dressed to show that they are cool, youthful, not uptight, and so on. The counterculture values of yesteryear have become mainstream, and people dress accordingly.
Although we tend to look to the well-dressed men of yesteryear as models, it is worth remembering that most of them starting dressing like bums as soon as it became acceptable.


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

I completely disagree that it's some trend towards egalitarianism -- to the contrary, I think it's a trend towards individualism and non-conformity -- a sartorial 'F-you': "I do my own thing, my own way, and don't have to impress you or anyone else".


----------



## Mr. Di Liberti (Jan 24, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> The purchase of non-adult clothing for men by women who like them to look juvenile.


Thats a fetish. [}]

Anthony

Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage ~ Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> Here are a few things that come to mind, in no particular order:
> 
> The primacy of comfort and convenience over appearance.


I agree with you on everything but this. The point was alluded to above as well. Everyone uses this as the excuse for why they dress like slobs. "I want to be comfortable." Are jeans and t-shirts really more comfortable than suits, or even chinos and an oxford? Are suits really "uncomfortable"? What kind of suits are they wearing? Even in summer, walking down the street in a seersucker suit, I would bet that I am more comfortable than someone wearing heavy jeans. I never thought of the "uncomfortable" clothing as uncomfortable...they have soft fabric, it's not like wearing a steel wool brush around!


----------



## Mr. Di Liberti (Jan 24, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> 
> I completely disagree that it's some trend towards egalitarianism


That may very well be the case, I don't know, but...



> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> a trend towards individualism and non-conformity


I fail to see, how dressing down exactly like the rest of the flock is individual or nonconformist.

It could also be said... By choosing to _Dress Up_ by todays standards rather old fashioned, that we are giving the Sartorial finger to the trendites and saying...



> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> "I do my own thing, my own way, and don't have to impress you or anyone else".


Anthony

Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage ~ Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by burnedandfrozen_
> 
> .I took her comment to mean "Don't dress nicer then us because you make us look bad and/or uncomfortable". So as long as we are like everyone else we feel better and we make others feel better since we are all validating one another.


One of the reasons I dress decently (not the primary one to be sure) is to do just what bothers your sister: to make my poorly dressed peers look bad and uncomfortable. Some will say I would lose a lot of friends this way but so far it's worked the other way around.

On other parts of these forums we discussed the movie "Metropolitan" (yes, it's about tr-ds, which i favor). One key line though, is when the slutty girl Cynthia says "this is so embarassing" and Charlie Black, paragon of standards, says "a little embarassment would do you some good".

"A little embarassment would do you some good" is the implied response I give to those who would suggest I dress down to the t-shirt jeans (or even untucked stripey shirt with square toed shoes) level so it won't make them feel embarassed/uncomfortable. I want to invalidate their appearance as much as possible.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He's not even Gilligan here.


----------



## DougNZ (Aug 31, 2005)

> quote:I want to invalidate their appearance as much as possible.


That is why I tend to dress a little young fogey: I know I look good in well-fitting, well co-ordinated clothes, I'm told I look good and I believe I dress appropriately for the situation - certainly by the standards that were instilled in me in my younger years.

I'm currently at university and dress more like a lecturer than a student. people say I look 'too dressy' at times, but in a year or two, those same people will be in the professional world where my 'too dressy' emsembles will not even cut it for business casual.

What I wear is a challenge to raise the satorial bar a little and for some of my older collegues to grow up and start acting like adults and not retarded teenagers.


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Mr. Di Liberti_
> 
> I fail to see, how dressing down exactly like the rest of the flock is individual or nonconformist.


Well if no one conforms, I suppose it could be said that they are all being conformist in their non-conformity.


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And that is the has always been the joke on non-conforming.

David

Everything went to hell when we let California have its own pizza.


----------



## Goblin (Jan 31, 2006)

You know what I blame this on the breakdown of? Society.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I guess no one cares about dressing neat and clean these days.People just want to put on whatever they can find and wear it.[}]


----------



## Vettriano Man (Jun 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Howard_
> 
> I guess no one cares about dressing neat and clean these days.People just want to put on whatever they can find and wear it.[}]


Yes Howard, we had noticed.


----------



## Nathan Detroit (Oct 12, 2005)

DEMOCRACY is the root cause... and we haven't yet hit bottom. It's the Degradation of the Democratic Dogma, baby. Henry Adams was right.



> quote:_Originally posted by jonlien_
> 
> I see a general decline in proper attire everywhere I go. Granted I don't fly around the world often, but I do fly once a month within the US.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mr. Knightly (Sep 1, 2005)

Didn't the Scousers start the trend of wearing athletic clothing as streetwear? Nothing has been more detrimental to the fabric of society in the last 1000 years.

Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express'd in fancy; rich, not gaudy;
For the apparel oft proclaims the man.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Actually, the root cause is Chuck Norris. The smart clothes are much too wise to risk going out in public and risk an encounter with him.

There is no trend towards sloppy dressing, only a list of clothes that Chuck Norris allows to live.


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

What would Florence King say I wonder...?


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Mr. Di Liberti_
> [br
> 
> 
> ...


I know exactly what he's saying...for a more exaggerated example...look at teenagers...they're all "non-conformists" that's why you can go to any high school in America and see hundreds of these "individualists" with green hair and the exact same metal hoops and bars embedded in some part of their face or body that it shouldnt be, wearing the same style of clothing, listening to the same type of music all with that same imbicilic expression on their face...but int hey're mind, they're all such daring non-conformists...the thing that they fail to realize is that when everybody is a "non conformist" the become nothing more than sheep...the same could be said about these people whom dress like slobs...it's like I said...they're all too self important, and dont feel that the conventional rules of society apply to them...

*****
[image]https://radio.weblogs.com/0119318/Screenshots/rose.jpg[/image]"See...What I'm gonna do is wear a shirt only once, and then give it right away to the laundry...eh?
A new shirt every day!!!"​


----------



## Mr. Di Liberti (Jan 24, 2006)

Gabba,

"like the rest of the _*flock*_", read sheep 

Anthony

Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage ~ Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote: _Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> Actually, the root cause is Chuck Norris. The smart clothes are much too wise to risk going out in public and risk an encounter with him.
> 
> There is no trend towards sloppy dressing, only a list of clothes that Chuck Norris allows to live.


If Chuck Norris doesn't like you, how can you like yourself?

It's just not worth a roundhouse kick, if you know what I mean.


----------



## Sartorius Rex (Mar 4, 2006)

I feel this is similar to what is happening to the English language; there is a definite trend from formal and proper to casual and relaxed. 

The trend, which some might argue was bound to occur anyway, is indubitably exacerbated by recent popular culture. Additionally, as others have stated, all trends are cyclical (the recent fashion shows are perfect examples of this), and naturally reverse their course every now and again. 

I#8217;m not sure if I would define it as dressing badly, but rather dressing with a different set of standards in mind. A hamburger may not be haute cuisine, but that doesn#8217;t mean it can#8217;t be enjoyable in its own right, if you follow my drift.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vettriano man_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks Vettriano.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I never realized dressing in anything but a sportcoat or suit was slobbish. Thank you for your insight, kind gentlemen.


----------



## Mr. Di Liberti (Jan 24, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Sartorius Rex_
> 
> I feel this is similar to what is happening to the English language; there is a definite trend from formal and proper to casual and relaxed.
> 
> ...


Good comparison between manner of speech and dress. Pop culture most certainly has played a role (IMO) in the devolution of standards.

However dressing in jeans and t-shirt is not synonymous with slobbery, I've seen slobs in suits.

Anthony

Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage ~ Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## Hugh Morrison (May 24, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by montecristo_
> 
> October 18, 1964.


You may jest, but in a thread a while back called 'when did it all go wrong?' there was a lot of discussion to pin down the Slob Revolution to an actual date.

Whilst the Revolution had its roots in WWII or earlier, the consensus seemed to be that the tipping point into Slobdom (or the 'Storming of the Winter Palace' if you know your history) was the late summer/early autumn of 1967.

'The casual idea is the triumph of misguided egalitarianism. By playing to the desire to seem non-judgmental, the Slob has succeeded in forcing his tastes on the world at large (because to object to inappropriate dress would be judgmental)'- Patrick07690


----------



## mbouvill (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Old Brompton_
> 
> IMHO, the cause is egalitarianism, the stupid obsession with equality.


The point of wearing a tuxedo is that everybody looks about the same. So they too are part of this "stupid obsession with equality". Same for private school uniforms.
What you say applies whenever everybody dresses the same (military/school uniforms, suits, jeans+Tshirts).


----------



## Mr. Di Liberti (Jan 24, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by mbouvill_
> 
> The point of wearing a tuxedo is that everybody looks about the same. So they too are part of this "stupid obsession with equality". Same for private school uniforms.
> What you say applies whenever everybody dresses the same (military/school uniforms, suits, jeans+Tshirts).


I thought the reason for wearing a _Dinner Suit_ (Tux [xx(]), was more to the point of looking one's best, Dressing for the event, showing respect for ones companions, and unless I've been misadvised, this has little to do with looking the same or egalitarianism.

From what I've read, was a time when none but the upper crust could afford to own a dinner suit, nor did they have need for such as the likelihood of being asked to attend such an event was rare.

In the realm of designer and bespoke finery, all suits and dinner suits do not look the same.

Uniforms on the other hand, are prescribed to impose rule and order, military, police and school uniforms serve to bring equity among the rank's, there's no telling rich from poor, and are often a symbol of authority.

To this day I remember my first day in basic, Master Chief addressing the ranks;

"From this day forward... You are no longer, White or Yellow or Black or Red... From this day forward you are all Blue... Through and through! NOW! Line up! Dark blue in the rears light blue in the front!

Anthony

Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage ~ Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Hugh Morrison_
> 
> Whilst the Revolution had its roots in WWII or earlier, the consensus seemed to be that the tipping point into Slobdom (or the 'Storming of the Winter Palace' if you know your history) was the late summer/early autumn of 1967.


My dad graduated Vermont in spring 1967, a tweed wearing, pipe-smoking, XK140 driving moderate Republican biology major. He went to British Africa (Kenya, Upper Volta, Basutoland) in the Peace Corps for two years. When he came back in fall of 1969 and visited UVM, he could not believe the changes. Now UVM has the reputation of being a hippie school. I think late summer/early autumn 1967 is right on.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

I would assign the sartorial decline to a general breakdown of discipline and education levels. Society has become decadent.

Every decade has its own dress codes, resembling the prevalent values in society. Currently, the most important ones are cheap consumption and hedonism. This is perfectly reflected in commonly worn attire.

I don't believe in the turnaround. There is no way to re-install discipline and civility in society.


A.


----------



## Brideshead (Jan 11, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Albert_
> 
> I would assign the sartorial decline to a general breakdown of discipline and education levels. Society has become decadent.
> 
> ...


Nor do I believe in it. There may have been 'step changes' as in 1967, but the general trend has been going on for at least 100 years. See my earlier posts.


----------



## mensimageconsultant (Oct 10, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> Here are a few things that come to mind, in no particular order:
> 
> ...


Of all the answers, yours is the most comprehensive. The only notable factor not mentioned in it or other replies is the increasing concentration of the population in warmer locales.

To expand on the "convenience" factor, there is a certain lack of free time that makes people willing to buy often low-quality clothes while they are at the mall or Wal-mart and not want to wear pieces that require dry-cleaning.

Also, since men are buying more and more of their own clothes, women dressing their men badly is becoming less of an issue. The flip side is that, in conjunction with less helpful retail establishments, many of those men would be better off dressed by women than dressed by themselves.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Hugh Morrison_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know about the Slob Revolution, but in Philp Larkin's immortal words:

Sexual intercourse began
in nineteen sixty-three
(Which was rather late for me)
Between the end of the _Chatterley_ ban
And the Beatles' first LP.

Was that when the rot started to set in?


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

All good replies, but...

The Lizard People have been quietly advancing the Reptilian Agenda for about 5,000 years, and only in the post-war era did mankind obtain enough technological savvy to actually be physically aware they were not alone. (See the post-war spike in UFO sightings and claims of abductions and reports of phenomena such as zombie outbreaks, lycanthropism, and vampirism - explanations of Reptilian activities, fueled by popular fiction and films.)

Slobism is part of the new Pacification Project. The way the Lizard People figure it, you get humanity weighed down with enough junk food, wearing poorly-made clothes that try and fail to disguise the result of the junk food, and blast the slobs' brains with video games, and before you know it songs about pimps win major awards, the vice-president's gunning down his friends in a hate-filled, beery rage, and the G-Men are handing over the keys to the country to swarthy men in burnooses...

And everybody's forgotten about the Lizard People.

From my bunker, I salute you, the few, the remaining, the warm-blooded, the pocket squared...

Selah.


----------



## arenn (Dec 29, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Trenditional_
> 
> I believe the root cause is laziness and rearing. In general we have become a lazy society, especially the generations born post 1975-1980. The â€œGen Yâ€ and to some extent â€œGen Xâ€™rsâ€ have not had to work for anything. For a few of us â€œXâ€™rsâ€ who were raised by older parents, we are lucky and were taught some values. There is an overall lack of self-respect which I believe carries over to how people present themselves. Additionally, for every father who doesnâ€™t teach his son values, personal pride and responsibility for their actions, those same lack of values grow stronger with the sonâ€™s sons.


I don't think that the Gen X/Y crowd is lazy. Rather, they figured out that in the modern economic world, you had better be in it for yourself (in an enlighted self-interest sense, of course) because you can believe your company is in business for itself (that is, its shareholders). Lack of loyalty and dedication cuts both ways. Notwisthstanding, I work in an industry which is notorious for long hours. There are many people in my company who work 70-80+ per week for long stretchs, almost all of them Gen X/Y.

If any generations can be looked at critically, I believe it is the "Greatest Generation" on through the boomers. These groups of people were the "greatest" at signing "social contracts" with themselves that promised them vast personal financial benefits and a leisurely retirement heretofore unknown while sticking their children and grandchildren (ie. Gen X and Y) with the tab, not to mention awful dressing.


----------



## mgnov (Jan 11, 2006)

The idea is entirely blasphemous to me, but I'm surprised someone hasn't started a thread called "What would Jesus wear?" If you think about it, did Jesus wear the clothing of the well-dressed individual brought up in upper-class Greco-Roman culture, or did he dress simply? I have no factual answer for that. My point is, we can look at a person and think, "That guy's a slob," but really isn't that just a failure on our part to see past the image? I appreciate a person who dresses well; on the other hand, I'm not able to make a value judgment of someone based merely upon one aspect of his life. 

I would also add that if we are speaking about all people who live in the world, the major reason for dressing poorly is poverty.


----------



## Arced (Feb 17, 2006)

Obviously there are a lot of reasons for the larger shift in clothing trends. I tend to think part of it is due to the change in popular role models. It seems that popular culture is worshipping increasingly younger people. Not to say that there weren't teenage stars previously, but it seems that the big stars of today are a lot younger and have much more influence. Older role models, who act and dress their 'age,' seem increasingly rare. Older pop stars seems to be chasing their youth.

Along these lines, I think that there's a larger cultural importance placed on health and exercise. I'm not against exercise/sports, but I think that there's an increasing expectation that everyone exercise or be engaged in sports, and that to be exercising/playing sports is the happiest thing one could be doing. In certain ways, I think the increasing focus on sports/exercise is an extension of the worshipping of youth, and doesn't really have that much to do with 'health'. 

Lastly, and still along these lines, obesity is up and looser clothing is more comfortable. Also, as dieting is also skyrocketing, cheap, disposable clothes are a lot cheaper when your waistline changes radically on a regular basis. 

Obviously, there's many other reasons, but...


----------



## Mr. Knightly (Sep 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by mgnov_
> 
> The idea is entirely blasphemous to me, but I'm surprised someone hasn't started a thread called "What would Jesus wear?" If you think about it, did Jesus wear the clothing of the well-dressed individual brought up in upper-class Greco-Roman culture, or did he dress simply? I have no factual answer for that. My point is, we can look at a person and think, "That guy's a slob," but really isn't that just a failure on our part to see past the image? I appreciate a person who dresses well; on the other hand, I'm not able to make a value judgment of someone based merely upon one aspect of his life.
> 
> I would also add that if we are speaking about all people who live in the world, the major reason for dressing poorly is poverty.


I think Jesus would have shopped at Lands End or Jos a Bank.

Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express'd in fancy; rich, not gaudy;
For the apparel oft proclaims the man.


----------



## Prophete-Faux (Feb 18, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

I agree with the contention that the 60s/hippies/boomers had a lot to do with it. Just look at the movies we cite as natty movies - there are a glut of them from the 40s and 50s, but then it falls off a cliff in the 60s and 70s, only to return slightly in the 80s. Not sure why this population surge caused such a slobification, but few can argue its just a coincidence.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

The entire US has shifted towards casualness and to its extreme: sloppiness, after the migration to the suburbs, imo. Life is more hectic and active for families. Why bother wearing good clothes when running around dropping off/picking up kids from soccer; grocery shopping; and so on?

It's easier to wear something "comfortable" and "easy care" than to wear something that requires dry cleaning or professional laundering. I'm not defending this, just making an observation. And while running from stop to stop in the family SAV (not SUV, SAV: Suburban Assault Vehicle), stop for lunch or dinner at the nearest Applebee's, Red Slobster, or Chilis. Hairy backs welcome.

I have no problem with shorts that are properly fitting and clean. I myself, in summer, wear khaki or woven shorts with a (tucked-in!) polo or short sleeve buttondown. On a rare occasion I will wear a NEW heavy weight colored T shirt with shorts if it's a summer evening of just hanging out or if the weather is oppressive. I live at the Jersey Shore where most anything goes. 

If you want to see sloppiness, come "down the shore". It's truly heartbreaking.


----------



## shelterdog (Feb 28, 2006)

Two points.

One, were people really all that well dressed forty or fifty years ago? I'll accept that movies stars dressed better than, and in general professionals may have dressed better then, but did the working guy on the street really dress all that well? Think about the Honeymooners, or Let Us Know Praise Famous Men, or Grapes of Wrath.

Second, isn't a huge part of this money? Having a collection of blazers, trousers, linen shirts, and what not for casual clothes is beyond most people's means.


----------



## LA_Guy (Feb 8, 2006)

The gritty subjects of post Vietnam filmmakers (Raging Bull and Taxi Driver come immediately to mind) and the rise of method acting - that explains the diffences in the movie wardrobing.



> quote:_Originally posted by NewYorkBuck_
> 
> I agree with the contention that the 60s/hippies/boomers had a lot to do with it. Just look at the movies we cite as natty movies - there are a glut of them from the 40s and 50s, but then it falls off a cliff in the 60s and 70s, only to return slightly in the 80s. Not sure why this population surge caused such a slobification, but few can argue its just a coincidence.


Style Forum moderator slumming with the trads. And I wear hoodies. And jeans. And sneakers. Please don't shoot me with a Trad pistol.


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

> quote:The gritty subjects of post Vietnam filmmakers (Raging Bull and Taxi Driver come immediately to mind) and the rise of method acting - that explains the diffences in the movie wardrobing.


I would just argue that these types of film matter is just another consequence of the relaxed standards of the boomer generation, not that the films themselves caused the relaxed standards. Further, there were plenty of war movies following WWII. None of those films seemed to result in relaxed dress standards.


----------



## alaric (May 23, 2005)

Profette-faux:



> quote:
> Is that Helmut Lang S/S 2004 he's wearing?


No, I think from the artful dirt stains and tears, that it is from the 2005 s/s Alexander McQueen line. (MSRP $585 at McQueen boutiques worldwide).

alaric

"Bunter, I shall have to look like a newspaperman." 
"Then, my lord, I would suggest the suit we don't like and the regrettable tie." 
"Perfect!"


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

> quote:Second, isn't a huge part of this money? Having a collection of blazers, trousers, linen shirts, and what not for casual clothes is beyond most people's means.


Agreed, but the average person is a heck of a lot wealthier now than they were in the 1940s. Also, I used to live by Columbia University, right on the edge of Harlem. If I had a nickel for every brand new North Face jacket or Pele Pele sweatshirt I saw, I would be a rich man. Here are people who are supposed to be among the poorest of the poor customarily wearing $300 jackets and $100 sweatshirts. Surely if one can afford overpriced garbage wear like that, they could afford a decent blazer that would last 10 times as long. Ergo, I dont think its a money thing either.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by NewYorkBuck_
> ...If I had a nickel for every brand new North Face jacket or Pele Pele sweatshirt I saw, I would be a rich man. Here are people who are supposed to be among the poorest of the poor customarily wearing $300 jackets and $100 sweatshirts.


Yes, but as a friend of my says, these are people who will never own their own home either.


----------



## Mr. Di Liberti (Jan 24, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by shelterdog_
> 
> Isn't a huge part of this money? Having a collection of blazers, trousers, linen shirts, and what not for casual clothes is beyond most people's means.


Yes and No...

Having made the transition from jeans, t-shirts and work boots/sneakers, to cotton or wool casual pants, collared shirts and appropriate leather footwear for every day, I can honestly say the cost doesn't have to be greater.

In fact I spend less for casual pants then I ever did for Levis, shirts acan be a bit more and the cost of shoes are about equal. The first sport coat I got cost less then a jeans jacket.

I believe whats more to the point here are values. Whats worn when, where and how.

Wearing jeans with t-shirt and boots does not make one a slob, how they are worn is the deciding factor.

Anthony

Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage ~ Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Nobody cares about how they dress these days.Some people aren't even aware of themselves sometimes.


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Mr. Di Liberti_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by mpcsb_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you kidding me? Columbia students poorest of the poor, will never own their own homes? Trendy is one thing, but a North Face jacket (not the line KMart carries) will last every bit as long as a good suit--longer, if you take into account blizzard usage.

Tom

--------------------
Death is...whimsical...today


----------



## Goblin (Jan 31, 2006)

A lot of people just don't give much thought to how they dress - for one reason or another, it's not a priority in their life. It's not necessarily a sign of a blighted worldview.

I don't think it has a thing to do with "respect," and I think one should take care not to make one's own peculiar obsession the benchmark for making psychological judgments about other people.

For instance, if you train hard with weights and are otherwise in good physical condition, you will encounter other fitness enthusiasts who judge other people based on their physical fitness. These people would look at many of the posters on this forum - based on these posters' descriptions of themselves - and think (or say) "Sure, he's dressed very nicely, but he's obviously overweight and weak. Nice clothes, pathetic physique - what's the point? Why bother dressing nicely if you don't even have enough respect for yourself to not be a chicken-shouldered, sizzle-chested tub of goo? You're going to look awful no matter how you dress. America is filled with fat losers who don't care about themselves or their children."

Less-than-peak physical condition just means you're not into working out or don't have optimal nutrition. Dressing like "a slob" just means that you're deficient or apathetic when it comes to dressing yourself. That's it. It's not any more than a superficially useful window for plumbing an individual's psyche or a society's ethos.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Mr. Di Liberti_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This I agree with.


----------



## Avers (Feb 28, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tom,

I think the refernce was to population of Harlem (supposedly the poopers in NYC), not to Columbia students...

William


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> There is no trend towards sloppy dressing, only a list of clothes that Chuck Norris allows to live.


I too blame Chuck Norris


----------



## Guest (May 4, 2021)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I dont necessarily blame the flower children...most of them grew up to become conservative mainstream America...I blame it on this underlying notion that "everybody is special", and the fact that people actually believe it (I'm sure I'll get pounced on for that one)...anyway...people want to believe that the conventional rules of society don't apply to them, they are too good to dress up...
> 
> They'd rather be "comfortable", I never understood that one, people think that wearing stiff heavy jeans, and unbreathable synthetic sweatshirts is comfortable??? They think wearing some sweatshop made claude hoppers with some basketball players name on them is comfortable??? They think that an itchy old ball cap is comfortable???
> 
> ...


Well said. Total disrespect and lack of courtesy for society and your fellow man and no respect for yourself. No effort to look presentable. What does that say about you?


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

I dont necessarily blame the flower children...most of them grew up to become conservative mainstream America, 
So said the The Gabba Goul

Fast forward 15 years, do you and he still think that? Flower children who became conservatives? 
Resurrecting 15 year old threads. Ya know...... if I were to post as "Guest" I would engage in current threads.

Most here know what lead to "slob wear", I think.


----------

