Why do people care so much about apparence? [Archive]

Razade

2017-05-16, 08:30 PM

Why people care so much about appearance?

Because looking like a slob is generally indicative of poor health and poor choices.

I really hoped this would improve as I grew older but... Nope not a change, still feels like high school.

I think it might be you, not the world around you.

I have a co-worker who is extremely vain and people for some reason really love him for that.

Some people are like that.

He is a fitness freak who is always bragging about going to the gym and lifting a certain amount of weights, and people actually fall for it.

Fall for what? Is he not actually lifting weights at the gym? Being healthy isn't a crime or anything to not be happy about.

Any humors thing he says is treated as pure gold comedy by my peers.

Maybe he's actually funny? Or they're sucking up to him. Maybe it's not about him being attractive, maybe it's just about him actually telling good jokes and being a decent dude. You're hardly an unbiased source here.

Why does anything humors you say sounds funny when you are hot?

It's not. Why are you making broad sweeping general statements without any actual information.

People said that the future would belong to the nerdy and tech-savvy.

Ah. Here we have the real complaint. Took us some time but we sure sussed it out. You're not upset about people being superficial when it comes to looks. You're envious of people not fawning over you instead. You want to be the person that everyone enjoys being around, you want what you think is the ideal life instead of being happy with what you have and you're not willing to change to get what you want. So instead of change or try new things you'd rather snipe at someone on an obscure internet webforum than do the hard work.

Good on ya. A+. I can't understand how you're not the most popular guy in the room!

People lied to me. :smallannoyed:

Welcome to the real world.

thamolas

2017-05-16, 08:36 PM

Appearance is a way of quickly assessing whether someone is crazy or can be trusted. If I see someone who has no concern for their effect on others (obviously doesn't bathe, for example) or how their own lifestyle choices affect them (the morbidly obese person obsessed with fast food or the chain smoker with zombie skin as two extreme examples), immediately red flags go up for me. If a person can't handle the most basic facets of human survival, how can I trust him/her with something requiring complexity or discipline? Or, in the example you cite, if I spot someone who works out and takes care of himself, but brags excessively and uses it as a weapon to hurt others' feelings, I know that that is a person I have no business trusting or spending time with.

Similarly, if someone is visibly handicapped, it gives me the chance to adjust/accomodate to their challenge in a way that isn't rude or hurtful.

To take a balanced view on the information given, your post sounds more like jealousy than self-concern. You could get into shape and practice good hygiene rather than stewing in sour grapes. Most "attractive" people are just cleaned up, not intrinsically "beautiful". For most people, getting into shape isn't that hard; it just requires a little discipline -- kind of like computer programming.

thamolas

2017-05-16, 08:38 PM

Ah. Here we have the real complaint. Took us some time but we sure sussed it out. You're not upset about people being superficial when it comes to looks. You're envious of people not fawning over you instead. You want to be the person that everyone enjoys being around, you want what you think is the ideal life instead of being happy with what you have and you're not willing to change to get what you want. So instead of change or try new things you'd rather snipe at someone on an obscure internet webforum than do the hard work.

Complaining is easy. Leveling up is hard. Nice response, Razade.

The Eye

2017-05-16, 08:39 PM

I just want some friends :eek::sigh::frown::furious:

Besides what's up with all this hygiene talk? I'm not some sort of hobo you know. What's this? The Alpha complex?

Razade

2017-05-16, 08:43 PM

I just want some friends :eek::sigh::frown::furious:

Complaining about the popular kid isn't going to get that for you. This isn't high school

Besides what's up with all this hygiene talk? I'm not some sort of hobo you know.

Well no, because I don't know you. You could be. I'd have your word for it.

What's this? The Alpha complex?

It's not "alpha" to take a shower everyday, wear clean clothing, brush your hair and teeth and work on losing weight. Heck, I know I need to be better about the last thing.

The Eye

2017-05-16, 08:50 PM

It's not "alpha" to take a shower everyday, wear clean clothing, brush your hair and teeth and work on losing weight. Heck, I know I need to be better about the last thing.

It was a Paranoia joke...

Anyway, but does it have to? Why being fit is better than being fat? Not that I'm fat... I'm actually skeletal, but still why? Why the amount of adipose tissue I have makes me a better person?

It makes no sense, that’s like.. Crazy talk! We humans have some really weird values.

thamolas

2017-05-16, 08:51 PM

I just want some friends :eek::sigh::frown::furious:

What's stopping you? What is your obstacle?

Besides what's up with all this hygiene talk?

IRL, with every person I have spoken to who has compared him/herself unfavorably with others; hygiene, diet, and fitness have been the culprits.

It used to be me doing the same thing.

When you take good care of yourself, self-esteem and confidence go up; anxiety and despair go down.

If there are deeper issues causing depression or deep-seated daily anxieties (such as social anxiety, for example), more extreme measures have to be taken. For myself, I suffered with an intense, chronic depression. I underwent psychedelic therapy and cured myself. It was hard work, but it was worth it! I had crippling social anxiety and took similar steps to cure that, too.

Unless you are hospitalized, enslaved, or imprisoned, you can do almost anything you want with your life. It's up to you. It really is. But it takes time, discipline, patience, and courage. And a lot of work.

Strigon

2017-05-16, 09:20 PM

To answer the first question, they don't. Not to the extent you seem to be implying, at least. Now, being attractive certainly gives you a leg up in many scenarios. This is especially true in social situations, and even more true in the dating scene. But it still isn't the be all and end all of who people like. But people like things that are nice to look at. If you are good looking, people will like looking at you. By extension, they will like spending time with you.
Secondly, being attractive isn't something that you're born with, and can never change. Of course, genetics favour some more than others in this - and every other field - but if you don't take care of yourself, your looks are one of the first things to go. Ergo, if someone is attractive, chances are they're driven and they take care of themselves. Note that driven doesn't necessarily mean useful; if you spend hours on your hair you're not automatically better than someone else, but it does show a certain amount of drive, and that you actually care about how you present yourself. These leave good impressions. The same can be said for working out; it takes a lot of time and energy, so clearly that person has a strong drive.

Anyway, but does it have to? Why being fit is better than being fat? Not that I'm fat... I'm actually skeletal, but still why? Why the amount of adipose tissue I have makes me a better person?

It makes no sense, that’s like.. Crazy talk! We humans have some really weird values.

Because, after a certain point, fat is a net loss for your body. Once you've got a healthy supply of energy stored in your body, it becomes a hindrance to store any more. You become less physically capable and you have higher risk of health complications. These are bad things. And, because weight is generally something a person can control - to a greater or lesser extent - having an unhealthy weight is indicative of not caring. This is, of course, far from universally true, but it's true often enough to colour a person's judgement.
It doesn't make you a better or worse person - I don't think anybody is saying it does - but it is an (extremely primitive) indicator of what sort of person you are.

Aedilred

2017-05-16, 09:20 PM

It was a Paranoia joke...

Anyway, but does it have to? Why being fit is better than being fat? Not that I'm fat... I'm actually skeletal, but still why? Why the amount of adipose tissue I have makes me a better person?

It makes no sense, that’s like.. Crazy talk! We humans have some really weird values.

Being fit is better for you completely irrespective of how others see you: it improves quality of life, susceptibility to illness, and life expectancy.

From the outside, someone who is fit is taking care of themselves, and doing so demonstrates a degree of self-discipline which is an attractive character trait.

From a purely romantic/sexual perspective, people who are fit are more attractive because they are healthier. Healthy people are, at a biological level, more attractive because they are more likely to have and raise healthy offspring.

It is possible to take things too far, and people will tend to view someone who is obsessed with their physical fitness with a degree of scepticism, unless they have a particular reason for being so (e.g. they have serious fitness-based pursuits or an equivalent career). But in general, being fit is good because, well, it just is, by definition. Considering objects rather than people, if something is "unfit" that means it's not good enough. By the very etymology of the word, fitness is a good thing to possess.

Scarlet Knight

2017-05-16, 09:36 PM

Why people care so much about appearance?

I really hoped this would improve as I grew older but... Nope not a change, still feels like high school.

I have a co-worker who is extremely vain and people for some reason really love him for that.

He is a fitness freak who is always bragging about going to the gym and lifting a certain amount of weights, and people actually fall for it.

Any humors thing he says is treated as pure gold comedy by my peers.

Why does anything humors you say sounds funny when you are hot?

People said that the future would belong to the nerdy and tech-savvy.

People lied to me. :smallannoyed:

You are fighting thousands of years of evolution. If you are young and healthy (substitute "fit") people like you. We are hardwired that way, automatically and subconsciously. If an old man comes to my counter I'll wait on him quickly and professionally. But if a pretty young woman is there, I will have a bigger smile and a bouncier step. I will want her to like me; even if I'm old enough to be her father. I will be happy to have her around and thus her laugh is more musical, and what she says will be filtered as funnier or wittier. Until she says something rude and then she gets the "Pretty Bimbo" stereotype.

As someone who remembers the world pre-internet, you have no idea how much better it is today for the nerdy then before. Just remember who the richest man in the world is (hint: not an oil shiek).

The Eye

2017-05-16, 09:40 PM

You are fighting thousands of years of evolution. If you are young and healthy (substitute "fit") people like you. We are hardwired that way, automatically and subconsciously. If an old man comes to my counter I'll wait on him quickly and professionally. But if a pretty young woman is there, I will have a bigger smile and a bouncier step. I will want her to like me; even if I'm old enough to be her father. I will be happy to have her around and thus her laugh is more musical, and what she says will be filtered as funnier or wittier. Until she says something rude and then she gets the "Pretty Bimbo" stereotype.

As someone who remembers the world pre-internet, you have no idea how much better it is today for the nerdy then before. Just remember who the richest man in the world is (hint: not an oil shiek).

But that's bad, and you should feel bad! Shame on you and the lack of self control over your hormones.

Scarlet Knight

2017-05-16, 10:01 PM

But that's bad, and you should feel bad! Shame on you and the lack of self control over your hormones.

You see, there's where we disagree. First, my hormone's control over me has been fading for decades. Yet I still like attractive people, even men. So why? Well, I've learned that attractive people can be kind or rude, smart or dumb, just like anyone else. All I know at first is they have one plus: they're attractive. Also, attractiveness may be as simple as someone who smiles and is happy. We as humans pick up on these clues and know (without knowing) that it will help us to be happy. There is plenty of scientific evidence that happiness is contagious.

The problem occurs if you make that the sole criteria for following, promoting or marrying someone.

scalyfreak

2017-05-16, 10:04 PM

But that's bad, and you should feel bad! Shame on you and the lack of self control over your hormones.

Nonsense.

Appreciation of an attractive member of any gender is nothing more than a sign of normal physical health. Which improves if you're fit.

Being appreciated as an attractive individual is good for self-esteem, and yes, it makes social interactions smoother and easier in any context. Unless of course they involve insecure individuals who hold the appearance and confidence of an attractive person against them, and jump to negative conclusions about the person underneath the surface, for no other reason because the surface itself is pretty and pleasing to look at.

Like you did with your co-worker in the first post in this thread.

And for the record, the world does belong to the geeks and the tech savvy. That doesn't mean anyone will give it to you for free, you have to work for it... just like everyone else always has, for as long as anyone can remember.

Omnipotent_One

2017-05-17, 03:25 AM

But that's bad, and you should feel bad! Shame on you and the lack of self control over your hormones.

If someone's appearance excites you and gives you energy, why should you have to suppress it? There's nothing wrong with finding other people attractive and being more interested in them as a result. It's a totally natural part of being a human being.

Being with people you find attractive literally improves your quality of life, all else being equal.

fire_insideout

2017-05-17, 03:27 AM

It's not so much that 'people' care about appearance so much that it troubles them, it's rather that some people care about appearance so much that it troubles them, and it sounds like OP is one of them.

Interestingly enough, from my own anecdotal experience, it seems that once you reach a certain level of self-esteem you no longer worry about the appearance of others, although you can certainly appreciate it.

Speaking for myself I certainly desire a attractive partner, but that is not the most important factor. I am impressed by people who have so much drive and focus that they manage to excel in a physical sport, but I admire people who achieve great things in science and arts in the same way.

tantric

2017-05-17, 04:11 AM

It’s easy to scorn the peacock. To watch him as he preens, struts, and turns unabashedly to check out his own behind is to understand exactly how he earned his reputation as nature’s most noxious narcissist.

How can we regard this bird, nature's ultimate object, as anything other than an object of pity? His confident strutting masks a deep desperation: If his efforts are unconvincing, all is for naught. He will get no ladies, pass on no genes, and have no impact on the future of his species. He will be but a showy speck in the sands of time. As Yorzinski puts it: “The males can fight all they want, and it probably helps them get a good territory where females are passing by, but ultimately it comes down to what the female wants.”

And yet: Who among us has not debased him- or herself in the name of love? Who has not burned with such passion that, for a moment at least, we have gone temporarily out of our head, losing all sense of self-awareness, in our single-minded pursuit of that elusive, effusive other? Without the eyes of the other—“the single assumption which makes our existence viable: that somebody is watching,” in the words of Tom Stoppard—we too would be revealed in all our desperate acts of affection, “every gesture, every pose, vanishing into the thin, unpopulated air.”

For love, it seems, is like the peacock’s tail: blind, yet full of eyes.

Slate article (http://www.slate.com/blogs/wild_things/2015/08/17/peacock_evolution_through_sexual_selection_feather s_sounds_eye_tracking.html)

unlike peacocks, humans evolve through two completely separate methods. genetics, of course, but also culture (dual inheritance theory, whales do it too). it is axiomatic that unhealthy and dirty are unattractive, right? and we don't like others who fall far outside the physical norm. that's probably genetic, but the rest?

i *loathe* cologne and perfume. i won't even sit next to that crap - it smells like flowers fertilized with toxic waste. but my sister applies it by spraying this toxic cloud out into the bathroom then walking through it. i used to dilute her perfume. then again, i have no body odor, ever, genetically (people with dry ear wax don't).

just in the USA there are dozens of subcultures, each with its own standards for appearance. because i'm basically a career criminal and not stupid, i tried to disappear into crowds,, and i'm good at it. in high school, before my fall, i wore my designer outcast motley and was persecuted for it. i guess the persecution validated my separation from the people i despised. and high school sucks - go watch 'Heathers'. but how do you supposed it worked while i was in grad school for ecology, in our own little building? there designer clothes marked you as a fool, if not an enemy. women, students and profs, wore minimal make-up. 'natural beauty' was idolized as were people from distant lands.

you should also note that while people care about appearances, they don't pay close attentions. for instance, 90% of people never read t-shirts. i got tired of coming out as gay and got a 'zombies ate my boyfriend' shirt, thinking wearing it once or twice a week would do it. not one person got it. i have a red son superman shirt - the one with a hammer and sickle inside the traditional outline? people actually see the 'S'.

btw, if you're talking about sexual attraction, don't believe the hype. smart=sexy

Frozen_Feet

2017-05-17, 05:40 AM

People said that the future would belong to the nerdy and tech-savvy.

People lied to me. :smallannoyed:

They lie to everyone. They lie to the fish.

This vain guy? They probably lied to him too. Because plenty of guys manage to be popular despite not being fitness freaks or obsessing over how much they lift, while plenty of others work out like crazy and this has nill effect in their favor. Chances are he is wasting a lot more effort than he'd actually need for superficial adoration of co-workers who aren't truly interested, and who aren't truly interesting to him.

That's the epiphany I had.

So forget about that guy. Instead, focus on yourself. So you want friends? Okay, so what've you done to that end lately? You apparently like roleplaying games, when was the last time you went to a convention? When was the last time you tried to get someone else interested in your hobby?

paddyfool

2017-05-17, 09:08 AM

"IRL, with every person I have spoken to who has compared him/herself unfavorably with others; hygiene, diet, and fitness have been the culprits."

Being appropriately well dressed, and a good, engaging communicator also help.

But yes - if you feel people aren't reacting to you in a positive way, maybe take a good look at yourself and come up with a structured, constructive plan to address why. I've been helped in the past by doing martial arts for fitness and working in roles where I had to do better at communication. Depends what your needs are and what works for you. But yeah - if you feel people aren't viewing you as sufficiently awesome, try to be more awesome. Whether they recognise it or not, you can still end up in a better place.

Kalmageddon

2017-05-17, 09:58 AM

Because it's literally the first thing they see about you.
Now the problem is when someone stops at looks and doesn't go further, but that's their problem, not yours.

Funnily enough, I also have a colleague that is quite the gym freak, all pumped and muscle bound. He's not very well respected exactly because of it, since he puts too much effort on looks and too little in substance.
Also, chiseled and pumped muscles aren't the same as real, functional and useful muscles, he'd make a good meat shield, but we usually aren't assigned to bodyguard duty, nor are we bouncers, so it's not even relevant to the job.

All things considered if all people see is your poor looks then you have bigger problems than that. Find a way to emphasise your qualities so they are more apparent.

Red Fel

2017-05-17, 10:01 AM

Okay, there are two issues to unpack here - the aesthetics of others, and the perception of you specifically, OP.

Let's start with aesthetics. Fact is, when you first meet a person, you don't see their personality, their intellect, their love of books or their taste in cuisine - you see the person who presents physically. A person who does not engage in proper, regular grooming, who does not dress appropriately for the situation, who does not engage in proper hygiene, isn't just failing to take care of himself. That person is saying, "I don't care enough about you to show up for this." That's why appearances matter.

Obviously, nobody cares how you dress or smell when you're at home in your underoos. Your world, your call. But when you step outside, how you present to others tells them, in part, how important they are to you.

As others have mentioned, visual aesthetics are also something of an evolutionary and societal thing. We are conditioned by genetics to find those who look like they will produce healthy young to be attractive, and to find those who look like they lack survival traits to be unattractive. We are conditioned by society to find additional definitions of beauty to be appealing. We ignore these facts at our own peril.

Griping about how unfair they are accomplishes precisely nothing.

Now, moving on to you. There's a common geek fallacy that "my friends accept me as I am, warts and all." And it's actually true, to a degree - a true friend accepts you despite your flaws, or sometimes because of them. It's also untrue to a certain degree, but that's not at issue here. But that doesn't mean that the world has to. It's frustrating, but it's true. If it matters to you to be accepted by the world, which owes you nothing, then you need to understand that certain sins are unforgivable to the world. And frequently, poor aesthetics are on that list.

Again, griping about how unfair this is accomplishes nothing.

Your options are either to establish and content yourself with a social circle that recognizes you for you, despite any physical flaws, or to change those parts of yourself you're willing to change in order to achieve broader acceptance, or to join the fashion or image industries and redefine standards of beauty for a new generation. Or do nothing.

Or scream into the ether about the unfairness of it all. That's a thing.

kyoryu

2017-05-17, 11:00 AM

Be the person that people want to be around.

Be interested in people. Be *nice* to them. Be positive, and uplifting.

Don't be sullen and resentful.

If you want people to like you, *like them*. Understand that they have different values and interests than you - and that not only is this okay, but it's actually pretty damn awesome! As much as you'd like them to show interest in your ****, show interest in theirs.

You've put down this dude for having a six-pack, claiming it's no accomplishment. Really? Man, getting a six-pack is *hard work*. You may not value the end result, but it's a lot of work, and you can at least respect that.

S@tanicoaldo

2017-05-17, 11:16 AM

Well appearance is a sight of status.

Believe me or not being fat used to be considered beautiful in the middle ages since food was something scarce and hard to get, being fat meant that you had a lot of money .

Being muscular on the other hand used to be a considered ugly, since the poor used to be farmers and peasants, people who worked on the fields all day and had to use their muscles and physical strength.

In ancient chine having longer finger nails was form of status and beauty as well, since a guy with super long fingernails was probably a bureaucrat or intellectual since he didn’t have to use his hands to work only his mind.

The same thing goes with being tan; a tan meant you work on the fields and the constant sunlight darker your skin.

Nowadays that food is available to most of the world, being fat shows that you don’t take care of your health, being muscular on the other hand not only means that you take care of your health but also that you have both MONEY AND TIME to go to the gym.

A person stuck in a terrible and boring desk job you won’t have the income or free time to work out.
Being tan also means you have the money and free time to go to the beach, pool or club so it’s also a sight of status.

Now that the jobs are less about physical labor and more something we do with our minds being pale mean that you are stuck indoors most of the time, so not a sight of beauty. Basically, when our society started to industrialise and we started to work more and more inside buildings (factories and workshops at first, nowadays offices), the only people who had even tans were people who were wealthy enough to lay around in the sun.

Funnily enough it used to be the opposite. And still is the opposite in many other cultures. Pale used to be the status symbol because in those times people used to work outside on the land and would get tanned from that. That means anyone who was pale had enough money to not have to work.

Attributes that convey status and wealth are seen as attractive, because, well, being rich is a good thing to our society.

Since we use computers for basically everything having longer finger nails is ugly since it means you have terrible hygiene and can’t type or use touchscreens.

So yeah beauty is something constantly changing, and is mostly connected to how much money you have.

Believe me if a hunky guy show up in a bar he will get attention, but if during conversation the girl finds out he is unemployed he will look extremely ugly in a mater of seconds. Believe me.

https://sc01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1Y3hsJpXXXXafaXXXq6xXFXXXg/Wholesale-Handmade-Nude-Fat-Woman-Oil-Painting.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Venus_and_organist_and_little_dog.jpg
http://vse-krugom.ru/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/%D0%98%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B0%D0%BB-%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%8B-%D0%B2-%D1%8D%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%85%D1%83-%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BA%D0%BE-1.jpg
https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/farmer-painting-johannes-strieder.jpg
https://www.artmajeur.com/medias/standard/m/y/myatim/artwork/7939129_farmer-yatim.jpeg
http://behindthehustle.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/deskjob.jpg

Honest Tiefling

2017-05-17, 11:57 AM

sounds like you still have a chip on your shoulder from high school. Maybe?

Sounds like you might be projecting a little to much. Or are pretty jealous.

Yeah, while your problem may be true, the internet is sadly overflowing with men who claim that women don't want nice guys...When in reality, they label any guy more successful, attractive, socially competent or wealthy as a jerk. Yeah, maybe not is happening here, but people hear so much about it that it is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction.

But if your situation is as you present itself, you have lost nothing. Why? Your coworkers are shallows and annoying. Why would you ever want such friends? These sound like horrible people.

Through S@tanicoaldo, I will point out that most of your examples are female, with very little to indicate that men were considered attractive for being fat. Given many cultures emphasis on military life (including the Greeks and Romans), the standards would not be the same. Also, biologically, a more rotund father contributes nothing unlike a more ample mother.

Aliquid

2017-05-17, 12:23 PM

So... someone was born more attractive than you. Then they decided to capitalize on that through exercise and a vain dedication to clothing and style. That way they maximize their natural asset. On top of all of that they are confident, and people notice that. Put it all together, and they are the 'popular' one wherever they go.

Well that isn't you. It will never be you. Move on.

The question is, what do you have that others don't. What can YOU capitalize on? The world doesn't revolve around being popular.

I work in an office, and over the years it has become quite clear that there are people that are liked, there are people that are respected, and there are people that are trusted. If you can pull off two out of three, then you can climb that corporate ladder and do just fine (especially if you can do so with humble confidence). The person that ONLY has "liked" as their asset will do ok for a while... then they hit a wall.

If your concerns are more social in nature, as in "I want friends"... well then you need to consider what a friend is. Do you really dream of being vain and having a bunch of superficial friends that don't really give a rats ass about your welfare? Because, that's what Mr. Vain has. If you want real friends that care about you and share your interests, values and type of humor... then don't look at him as a role model.

Being lonely sucks. Being socially awkward sucks. The challenge is finding the right people to hang out with, and I'm guessing that your office isn't that place. You are going to have to find somewhere else to socialize. Somewhere else where you belong and feel valued.

S@tanicoaldo

2017-05-17, 12:28 PM

I just want some friends :eek::sigh::frown::furious:

That's true Aliquid, do you really want to be friends with THOSE people? People who are so easily impressed by a vain guy?

Maybe you are better off alone.

Kyberwulf

2017-05-17, 02:23 PM

Why people care so much about appearance?

I have to disagree with Red Fel. When you first meet someone. You can tell a lot by their appearance. Their personality their intellect. First of all their hygiene and what they are wearing is a horrible thing to judge someone on. There is more to appearance then just that. It's also how they stand, the way they speak. How they engage with everyone around them. I mean you could be the best dress well washed person in the room. If you sit slouched over, with a perma growl on your lips, and hate line around your eyes. No one is going to like you. You could be a hobo off the streets, and still attract a crowd if you are a funny, happy go lucky guy, who tries to make people laugh.

I really hoped this would improve as I grew older but... Nope not a change, still feels like high school.

Why? Why would it change from high school? There is more to high school then just learning book knowledge. It's also a place to learn human interaction. It's one of the reasons why school is important.

I have a co-worker who is extremely vain and people for some reason really love him for that.

I doubt people love him because he is vain. That seems to be your perception of him. I imagine from later descriptions, that he is funny.

He is a fitness freak who is always bragging about going to the gym and lifting a certain amount of weights, and people actually fall for it.

Actually fall for it? Again, as other people have asked. Is he not exercising? I mean, if he is giving out advice and people are taking it, hoping to look good? Then yeah.. I could see how falling for that is bad.

Any humors thing he says is treated as pure gold comedy by my peers.

Funny thing about saying humorous things. Is that people will treat it pretty good if it funny. I mean it would be one thing if he was telling stupid jokes that are really bad, and people treat it as gold. But if you say it is humorous, then you recognize that it is funny.

Why does anything humors you say sounds funny when you are hot?

Again, if you say something that is actually humorous... then it will sound funny. I don't see what your physical looks have to do the joke. Although, I am always surprised when a Hot person is humorous. I mean funny. Like actually funny. Most actually good looking people I meet say some pretty sarcastic things that are pretty mean, and expect you to find it humorous. So I am always surprised when an actual HOT person is actually pretty funny. I heard it said that we don't expect things out of hot people. So it is surprising that they can be anything else.

People said that the future would belong to the nerdy and tech-savvy.

Dude, I don't think you are nerdy or tech savvy then. Because in my limited knowledge. I impress so many people. If I wanted to I could be one of the most popular people around here if I was more knowledgeable about technology. Although, I don't think it is just Nerdiness or Tech based. If I were good and knowledgeable about anything, the opposite sex would find me attractive. Intelligence is a pretty good aphrodisiac.

People lied to me.

I think people aren't lying to you. I think you are lying to yourself. I haven't met you or really interacted with you. I can say though, I can picture you as that one person who sits off by himself, is standoff-ish, and eyero ish. Staring hate daggers at Tigger wondering why everyone loves him and not you.

Chen

2017-05-17, 02:47 PM

Do you really dream of being vain and having a bunch of superficial friends that don't really give a rats ass about your welfare? Because, that's what Mr. Vain has. If you want real friends that care about you and share your interests, values and type of humor... then don't look at him as a role model.

There's no evidence that the vain person isn't also just a fun person to hang around with and the people actually like him for that reason. The OP mentions that when he says humorous stuff, people find it funny and laugh. It's possible they're just playing along for whatever reason, or that the person is legitimately fun to be around even if they talk about the gym a lot. I mean the OP mentions "always bragging about going to the gym and lifting a certain amount of weights", does this mean every conversation is only about this?

kyoryu

2017-05-17, 02:56 PM

If you want to become more popular, try this:

Assume people are smart and reasonable.

When people do something that you wouldn't do, or enjoy something that you don't enjoy, or choose differently than you would choose, assume that they are smart and reasonable to start with. Then, figure out why a smart and reasonable person might do the thing that seems stupid to you.

Chances are, they're doing it because of one of two reasons:

1) They have different available knowledge than you do

2) They value different things than you do

With number two, be careful not to strawman them into valuing "obviously stupid" things.

When you can understand why people might do things other than what you would do, I think you'll find it easier to relate to them, and to get along with them.

Kalmageddon

2017-05-17, 03:20 PM

If you want to become more popular, try this:

Assume people are smart and reasonable.

That piece of advice worked horribly for me, to be honest. Spent too many years trying to fit in where I had no place, searching for meaning where there was none.

veti

2017-05-17, 03:33 PM

That piece of advice worked horribly for me, to be honest. Spent too many years trying to fit in where I had no place, searching for meaning where there was none.

It's not easy to implement in practice, and it is easy to get it wrong - but there's a strong point in the advice itself. If you, internally, are despising or mocking others for their choices - they can tell. Not always, but more often than you think. And they'll respond by seeing you as stuck-up, vain, arrogant, pick your term, even if they couldn't fully articulate the reasons they feel that way.

Respecting people around you isn't, by itself, enough to make you popular. And some people (sociopaths) do manage to do without it. But for most of us, it does help.

kyoryu

2017-05-17, 03:47 PM

It's a basic exercise in developing empathy.

That's not to say that you should want to hang out with every single person, or fit in with every group.

But having a basic level of empathy for the people around you can only help matters, and learning to view people through that lens, even people you disagree with and have no desire to spend time with, will only sharpen that skill for when you're around people you *do* enjoy the company of.

Like, I'm not saying that anyone should start bodybuilding. I am saying that understanding that bodybuilding, to some people, is much like RPGs or video games are to most people here is a good start in understanding why people act the way they do.

AMFV

2017-05-17, 04:08 PM

In your case I suspect it's because you'r probably in a job where some degree of technical knowledge (or nerdiness) is expected, and therefore less likely to impress people. Whereas if you were in a more physical field people would be less impressed by feats of strength, unless they were very impressive, in actuality. At least that's been my experience.

Kalmageddon

2017-05-17, 04:52 PM

It's not easy to implement in practice, and it is easy to get it wrong - but there's a strong point in the advice itself. If you, internally, are despising or mocking others for their choices - they can tell. Not always, but more often than you think. And they'll respond by seeing you as stuck-up, vain, arrogant, pick your term, even if they couldn't fully articulate the reasons they feel that way.

Respecting people around you isn't, by itself, enough to make you popular. And some people (sociopaths) do manage to do without it. But for most of us, it does help.
I get it, but the solution for me was simply to stop frequenting people whose choices I don't respect. Or at least to only hang out with them in a context where that wasn't apparent.
But that's probably just me. I work in peculiar ways.

Sobol

2017-05-17, 05:12 PM

Why being fit is better than being fat?
A variety of reasons. The former is a bit harder to achieve and a bit rarer to see, for example. Like why silver is valued more than copper - despite copper also being a perfectly good and useful metal.

Scarlet Knight

2017-05-17, 07:13 PM

They lie to everyone. They lie to the fish.

I love this line!

"Hey, who left this food out? Ow ow ow! My lip! THE WORM IS A LIE!" :smallbiggrin:

90,000

2017-05-17, 08:49 PM

You sound bitter.

Work on improving yourself, constantly.

Even if you think you're perfect.

Especially, in that case.

Frozen_Feet

2017-05-18, 04:53 AM

I love this line!

"Hey, who left this food out? Ow ow ow! My lip! THE WORM IS A LIE!" :smallbiggrin:

It was actually a reference to the movie, Falling Down.

adamzeira

2017-05-18, 05:15 AM

Nerds *do* own the real world... In certain aspects

But the hard truth is, people want you in their life for what you can contribute/add to them. It ranges from the very obvious "money", to more subtle things. Think about your friends, they have to give you something, or you'd stop hanging out with them. It might be

- Good conversation
- Sense of friendship
- Money
- Nostalgia
- Just a "good" feeling. Like hanging out with kids, if you like kids
- (if they're of the opposite sex) good looks. Just because it's fun to look at

The world is shallow in a way. That's just how it works. We try not to make it so, but it kind of is

Looks-wise, think about it this way: it fades. If they're a terrible person, as it fades people will start to notice it

Red Fel

2017-05-18, 09:03 AM

It was actually a reference to the movie, Falling Down.

I mean, if you want to be technical, fish are themselves a lie, in that they don't exist. There is no such thing as a "fish," inasmuch as there is no scientific grouping to encompass that term. You have various sea creatures of various scientific groups, but some will have more in common with birds or lizards than with other sea creatures. "Fish" is an arbitrary word that means precisely what we decide it means in a given moment.

The fish, if you will, is a lie.

8BitNinja

2017-05-18, 09:12 AM

From reading the comments and the first post, this looks like something old me would post without thinking rationally about for a few minutes.

Please don't be old me. That was a bad me.

Winter_Wolf

2017-05-18, 09:13 AM

Aedilred

2017-05-18, 10:19 AM

I mean, if you want to be technical, fish are themselves a lie, in that they don't exist. There is no such thing as a "fish," inasmuch as there is no scientific grouping to encompass that term. You have various sea creatures of various scientific groups, but some will have more in common with birds or lizards than with other sea creatures. "Fish" is an arbitrary word that means precisely what we decide it means in a given moment.

The fish, if you will, is a lie.

Well, yes and no. Taxonomically speaking you are of course completely correct. But if someone asked you to draw a picture of a fish, you drew a giraffe, and said "that's a fish, because technically..." you'd get a slap, and rightly so. The concept of a "fish" is pretty well established to the point of consensus, the only debate over inclusion being around the fringes (shellfish, mostly). There are a lot of nouns in the English language which can't be nailed down to a single scientific definition but which nevertheless inarguably exist, or which are abstract but over which a consensus exists as to their definition.

So I think "the fish is a lie" only works as above in a fairly narrow field.

Aliquid

2017-05-18, 10:37 AM

Well, yes and no. Taxonomically speaking you are of course completely correct. But if someone asked you to draw a picture of a fish, you drew a giraffe, and said "that's a fish, because technically..." you'd get a slap, and rightly so. The concept of a "fish" is pretty well established to the point of consensus, the only debate over inclusion being around the fringes (shellfish, mostly). There are a lot of nouns in the English language which can't be nailed down to a single scientific definition but which nevertheless inarguably exist, or which are abstract but over which a consensus exists as to their definition.

So I think "the fish is a lie" only works as above in a fairly narrow field.Cuttlefish, jellyfish, starfish, crayfish... whales, seals and crocodiles used to be known as fish too.

Consider broad categories for things that aren't called "fish", such as "birds", "mammals", and "reptiles". They all come from a common ancestor. i.e. all birds are related to each other.

If you look at all things called 'Fish', you can't make that claim. A lungfish is about as closely related to a salmon as it is to a dog.

Red Fel

2017-05-18, 01:25 PM

Telonius

2017-05-18, 01:43 PM

Looks matter, even to nerds, and even in science. Personally, I work at a science journal. Often we'll have an extremely important paper that deserves to be on the cover; but when we request a cover image, the author will come back with something that's horrible-looking, or just plain boring. Meanwhile, another researcher in the same issue has a paper of similar importance. They send a picture of a chimp or a rhino, or even a colorful picture of a horrible virus (extreme close-up). Which do you think is going to be the cover art? Each image is a communication, and we'll pick the one that gets an interesting idea across the best.

The image you project by your own appearance communicates something as well. Often it's the only message you communicate to your community. Unless they're actually talking to you, how you look is the only way you're getting an idea into their heads. Your appearance might communicate different messages based on the content and the audience, and it's certainly not the only message you send out; but you can't ignore those things and expect people to figure out your character telepathically.

thamolas

2017-05-18, 02:20 PM

Work on improving yourself, constantly.

Even if you think you're perfect.

Especially, in that case.

^^This. Exactly this.

Knaight

2017-05-18, 02:50 PM

Back to the original question, it's worth breaking appearance down into a few different things in terms of understanding how people interact with it and why. Looking at this from least controlled to most controlled:

Physical Features: This is basically biological, with cultural emphasis. Things like what ends up where on the face, size of head compared to body (in terms of height) etc. are all lumped here, and they have an effect on how people are treated. This is a biological and cultural bias that people should be pushing back on, but it's still understandable.
Weight: This is more controllable, but also doesn't matter for a whole bunch of cases where it is treated as important. Weight means little in terms of someone's ability to do a desk job, and when it comes up in hiring decisions and the like (often subconsciously) that's a problem. Again, there are biological preferences here with a heavy dose of culture.
Grooming: Grooming is largely controllable under most circumstances*, it's something that people can generally do, and in the case of odor in particular it affects others. There are reasonable appearance based judgements to make here even outside of cases where appearance is a heavy factor for legitimate reasons**. There is also some level of communication being done by how one grooms.
Clothing: Again, there are external constraints here, and people can be unreasonable in clothing based judgements. With that said, there is a lot of deliberate cultural signalling that goes on with clothing, and people reading that is reasonable.

As for the rest of the thread, there have been a couple of rather outlandish claims worth addressing. There's the idea that intelligence can be discerned from appearance alone, which is ludicrous. There's the idea that all appearance based judgement are reasonable, which is also ludicrous.

*Obviously someone getting on the case of a disaster victim for looking ungroomed or similar is way out of line.
**Romantic entanglements, modeling careers, etc.

TheManicMonocle

2017-05-18, 03:12 PM

Well look at it this way, people like hard workers right? It is seen, albeit incorrectly in some cases, that somone who looks good must work hard on their looks. Inversely, somone who looks bad must be lazy. Not that I agree with this view, but sometimes the truth isn't as important as the majority belief.

Aedilred

2017-05-18, 05:05 PM

Cuttlefish, jellyfish, starfish, crayfish... whales, seals and crocodiles used to be known as fish too.

Consider broad categories for things that aren't called "fish", such as "birds", "mammals", and "reptiles". They all come from a common ancestor. i.e. all birds are related to each other.

If you look at all things called 'Fish', you can't make that claim. A lungfish is about as closely related to a salmon as it is to a dog.

But again, this is a biological distinction, not a conceptual one. Yes, our idea of what a fish is has changed, but we still have a pretty clear understanding of what a fish is for the purposes of defining and understanding them for every purpose other than the narrow and niche biological categorisation of them. (Broadly speaking, it's a vertebrate* animal which has gills when fully grown and doesn't have limbs with digits). Where there is confusion, it is around the edges: things that look like fish but are not fish (like cetaceans), and other sea creatures that do not look like fish but might be considered to be them depending on precise definition (like starfish). In the overwhelming majority of cases (both at the human end and at the fish end) it is understood whether or not something is a fish. Everybody intuitively understands that both a lungfish and a salmon are fish, but a dog isn't, even if taxonomically the salmon has more in common with the dog. Taxonomy doesn't always map to vernacular use: hence why there are other groups like "hawks", "frogs/toads" and the like which are relatively well-understood but don't necessarily have a biological significance.

Funny you should mention reptiles as an example, since they're in the same boat as fish: crocodiles are more closely related to birds than to lizards, but birds are not generally considered "reptiles".

The point is that, while taxonomy as used by biologists is undoubtedly valuable, it doesn't have a monopoly on deciding the validity of everyday word use, most of which predate its discipline.

Well, I mean, I say that's the point. It's not the point in the thread. Rather the point in my original comment regarding this completely irrelevant digression, for which I apologise :smallwink:

*This either does or doesn't include the hagfish, depending on how pedantic one wants to be. If this is considered unacceptably discriminatory against hagfish, assume that a marginally more complex skull-based definition were used instead.

Dienekes

2017-05-18, 05:14 PM

As someone who is ugly as sin, overweight, wears the same 7outfits every week, and just in general looks like a disheveled bum.

If I had the option I'd rather be looking at a Rembrandt than my nephews used diapers. If you get my meaning.

But the important thing is, know where your priorities are. If you want to have friends, sure being attractive is a boost, but just as, if not more important, is being charismatic, interesting, engaging, and confident. If you slouch around all day and don't engage people they won't be interested in you.

But you have to figure out if it's worth the effort. In general, I don't much care for the people around me, so I don't make an effort to become friendly with them.

Aliquid

2017-05-18, 06:34 PM

[Various perfectly valid points] I suppose you are right. But I'm the type that would argue that a tomato is a fruit (as is a cucumber, pepper... etc), even though I know I'm being pedantic (as you can see, I don't push the issue too far though)

S@tanicoaldo

2017-05-18, 08:39 PM

I normally hate AXE comercials but this one is relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzTSE6kcLwY&list=LLuD_yrbM1v_chSQkjk_1xyQ&index=15

You don't need muscles or a cute face, all you need is self confidence and style, YOUR OWN style.

Aliquid

2017-05-18, 09:25 PM

I normally hate AXE comercials but this one is relevant:
You don't need muscles or a cute face, all you need is self confidence and style, YOUR OWN style.I wouldn't have watched that if it wasn't for you posting it... considering it was an Axe commercial I had set the bar really low, and was pleasantly surprised that it was actually not that bad. (and yes, quite relevant)

S@tanicoaldo

2017-05-18, 09:45 PM

I wouldn't have watched that if it wasn't for you posting it... considering it was an Axe commercial I had set the bar really low, and was pleasantly surprised that it was actually not that bad. (and yes, quite relevant)

I know rigth? And they did AGAIN! With another cool and relevant comercial. What goign on? Is this an alternative universe or soemthing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WySfa7x5q0&list=LLuD_yrbM1v_chSQkjk_1xyQ&index=17

Fri

2017-05-18, 10:10 PM

For my two cents, I found out that generally find as long as you're decently hygienic, confidence and knowing how to present yourself is more important than actual physical "things" for appearance.

It's easy to give example just from interacting with my friends. Basically, any single type of appearance can look good or bad. Like for example, you can have unshaved overweight man wearing shirt, and depending on how he act, people can see him having the appearance of cool friendly bear or someone to stay away from. Or like, a friend of mine just appear in our gaming session at the mall with silly thick-rimmed glass, t-shirt, and cargo short. Basically if it's any other person you could easily see him as underdressed and silly. But with how he acts (and how he's decently groomed of course), he actually looks fashionable and ready for a night in the mall (to be fair he's a very friendly and charming person who can sell the golden gate bridge for you).

Aliquid

2017-05-18, 10:41 PM

I know rigth? And they did AGAIN! With another cool and relevant comercial. What goign on? Is this an alternative universe or soemthing?Clearly they have someone new in marketing

rakkoon

2017-05-19, 06:31 AM

From reading the comments and the first post, this looks like something old me would post without thinking rationally about for a few minutes.

Please don't be old me. That was a bad me.

And how did you become the new you?

Mikemical

2017-05-19, 10:04 AM

Anyway, but does it have to? Why being fit is better than being fat? Not that I'm fat... I'm actually skeletal, but still why? Why the amount of adipose tissue I have makes me a better person?

It makes no sense, that’s like.. Crazy talk! We humans have some really weird values.

Because physical attractiveness is most of the time a rather good giveaway of a person's physical health. A healthy attractive body means healthy genes, and down to instinctual level, we're drawn towards mates which would mother/father healthier children. It's been part of our evolution and it's hard-coded in our brains.

Also, you would be surprised how many benefits you get from regular excercise. I'm not a gym junkie, but I do some crossfit and running, and the endorphines released from excercising will make your mood improve. Coupled with a healthy diet(doesn't mean cutting out junk food entirely, just not having McDonalds/Pizza 5 times a week) you will feel and eventually look better, and people will notice that.

You're sounding like the tumblrinas who dye their armpit hair blue, won't shave off their mustaches, wear shirts that say "You're thinner than me, not prettier" and think that because they feel entitled to landing themselves a Fabio, the world is unfair to them for not giving them a score of Fabios fawning for them and that "THE PARACHUTRIARCHY" is conspiring against them.

You don't need muscles or a cute face, all you need is self confidence and style, YOUR OWN style.

THIS. I used to be a social reject that didn't fit anywhere, pizza-faced nerd, always wore black clothes and listened to metal in my headphones all the time, being all angsty because "nobody understands what it's like to be me", trying to copy whatever trend was popular to "fit in".

Then I grew up, started dressing differently, eating better, doing some actual excercise(regardless how many articles they write saying so, "sexual stimulation/intercourse" is not the same as running 15 minutes in the threadmill), being more open about my opinions, I got some actual friends. Not "people I go to class with and see everyday", but people who would invite me to have a beer at their place, or that I would invite to come to my house for some BBQ and they actually came instead of skipping out on me. I got a girlfriend after I became more confident with myself by pretending I was confident with myself. When I look in the mirror I don't see the angsty teen being all emo because he doesn't have any real friends, I see the person I've been working myself up to be.

2D8HP

2017-05-19, 01:11 PM

....I have a co-worker who is extremely vain and people for some reason really love him for that....

That's odd, the guy who most fits that description (vain and a "gym rat") on my crew is very distrusted and has been on stress leave for a year.

The guy who was the most "young, tall, dark, and handsome" on the crew (admittedly not that hard to be since most of us look more like Goblins than Aasimar), was treated badly by our boss, and quit.

Maybe you're just working at the wrong place?

I just want some friends :eek::sigh::frown::furious:

I vaguely remember feeling that way.

Here some old posts of mine responding to others who were looking for friends:

...Since a lack of time sounds like your biggest impediment I'm not sure any of these suggestions will help, but here's some of what I have spent time doing with people who were neither co-workers or family:

1) Union meetings.
Admittedly some guys at the meetings were former and future co-workers, but few have been current co-workers, and mostly it's been folks I never worked with. I knew one great guy who besides going to Union meetings would also go to a Freemason Lodge near my home, such was his love of being in a "Guild" (being in a sevice club is similar).

2) Volunteering.
I've definitely met people by volunteering for "Habitat for Humanity", and precinct walking.

3) Dungeons & Dragons!
Click here (http://dndadventurersleague.org/find-a-game/regional-pages/) for a
D&D ADVENTURERS LEAGUE regional list, lot's of e-mail address! You should be able to find someone to game with (I'm sure there's an equivalent for Pathfinder).

My experience has been that after leaving high school (I wasn't privileged with a University education), there just simply isn't the freetime to maintain the kind of friendships I had as a youth, but a half-dozen folks at the "Confessions" thread were kind enough to alert me to the fact that other people still find the time!

Good Luck!

For general happiness advice, from at a different thread:I posted this:

...If your looking for advice (you may very well just want the catharsis, of expressing your thoughts), it is well to still pursue relationships (I.e. connections/conversations) with other people, but avoid for now seeking "relationships" (romance).
In fact avoid thinking about your personal happiness much at all.
Instead pretend to take an interest in the well-being of others (collegues, students, grocery store clerks,, street beggers etc).
Ask them how their doing, pretend you care, maybe take a week off and volunteer for something like habitat for humanity.Tell jokes and try to get someone to smile. Do good work. Get outside your head and "fake it till you make it".
Even if you never get very happy, you'll at least have made the world a better place, and you may get some small satisfaction from that. In my experience happiness usually comes when your too busy to look for it.

You've gotten some real good advice on making friends in this thread, but I have a question for you:

Why do you want any?

I know that sounds absurd, but I pretty much have left my "friendship" days behind.

I still have plenty of social interaction with other people, but I don't help anyone move, nor do I expect any help from non-family, and I really don't seek any deeper contact than I already have with my co-workers, or the book-sellers that are my acquaintances.

If you want more conversations there are plenty of activities (just go to some Adventurers League or Pathfinder Society games!), and Habitat for Humanity is fulfilling to volunteer for (admittedly I initially did for Apprentice credit during the last recession).

Plenty of political organizations want your time as well (I used to precinct walk).

But I guess I'm odd in that I'm generally grateful when I can get enough solitude to read, and I find that the more time I spend with people the more likely they're to ask me to unclog a drain or other such task which I try to avoid.

....Or should I make up some excuse? Or should I just man up....

Since you wrote, "should I just man up", I'm guessing you're male.

OK, bad news if you're an American:

Maybe because there's a lower floor and a higher ceiling (more American men are homeless, and more American men are billionaires than are American women), but appearance typically makes a bigger difference in income for men than women.

Also appearance makes a bigger difference in whether you will be convicted of a crime.

Both men and women treat both male and female strangers who are regarded as better looking better (taking time to give directions, etc.).

... I'm actually skeletal....

If you want women's attention that's good news!

Most American men think that women are looking for guys that look more like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

They're wrong (American women make the mistake of thinking that guys want women who are fashion model thin, and they're also wrong).

Women typically want guys who look more like David Bowie than a body-builder.

Men seeking men usual do like more musculature though.

Both prefer some facial hair, women usually like short to long stubble, guys full beards.

It's no accident that so many young guys seem to be trying to look like Paul Bunyan ("lumbersexuals").

Wear red.

Back in the 1990's (before I looked like a Goblin), when I walked, women strangers would offer me rides when I wore leather boots or shoes, dark pants, oval sunglasses, and a mostly red plaid shirt.

Get yourself a greatcoat: (https://bridgettejohnson.wordpress.com/tag/a-darker-shade-of-magic/)

http://www.fastcosplay.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/450x450/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/h/sherlock-holmes-wool-long-coat-cosplay-costume.jpg
(Not for the summer!)

Unfortunately the main way to look attractive to most women is to be tall, and while a few sartorial tricks can help a little bit, there's not much you can do.

Fortunately most women regard the majority of men as not looking attractive.

Manner and voice are more typically more important to women.

Women value intelligence, wit, and sanity more than men usual do.

So think before you talk.

Talk low and slow, without mouth breathimg (if you're not saying something, close your mouth).

A deep voice is important.

Think Sean Connery, James Earl Jomes, Patrick Stewart, and at the extreme Barry White.

Most of these will get you more respect from men as well.

But... men tend to enforce conformity more.

If the guys you work with typically wear football jerseys and knee shorts and you look dapper instead, then expect some hostility (guys are often jerks).

"Why can't I just be myself?"

Well, who are you?

Does looking different change who you are?

kyoryu

2017-05-19, 04:42 PM

"Why can't I just be myself?"

Well, who are you?

Does looking different change who you are?

Years ago, I remember talking to a guy on a forum who didn't understand why he needed to cut his hair for a job, since his hair didn't actually matter or change who he was or what he could do.

My response was: "You're absolutely correct. Your hair does not define you, or what you can do, or who you are, and assuming it does is shallow. So, when are you cutting it?"

The Eye

2017-05-19, 06:08 PM

Aliquid

2017-05-19, 08:10 PM

Thanks for the support guys, but now I realize that I don't really care about changing myself or making friends, I was only feeling down that day and it was a moment of weakness.

Thanks all, but I’m fine as am I and I won’t have all the hard work of changing myself for people who can’t appreciate me.I had just noticed this morning that we were all rambling on about this subject for a few days without seeing any comments from you. Glad to hear that you are fine now.

2D8HP

2017-05-19, 08:15 PM

...I was only feeling down that day and it was a moment of weakness.

Thanks all, but I’m fine as am...

Sometimes you just need to vent (Crom knows I do).

A good rant can help.

Best wishes.

Delicious Taffy

2017-05-19, 08:26 PM

And so it ends the way it began. With pointless whining.

TuggyNE

2017-05-20, 11:24 PM

Years ago, I remember talking to a guy on a forum who didn't understand why he needed to cut his hair for a job, since his hair didn't actually matter or change who he was or what he could do.

My response was: "You're absolutely correct. Your hair does not define you, or what you can do, or who you are, and assuming it does is shallow. So, when are you cutting it?"

When I first read this, I thought it sounded reasonable enough, but still somehow left a bad taste in my mouth. Then I thought about it some more this afternoon and realized the problem I have with this response: it's telling the person to sell their principles about human worth so they can have a job.

Specifically, someone who objects to a shallow system for valuing people isn't usually just[I] saying that they wish that system wasn't in use, whether because it's irrelevant, inaccurate, or whatever. That would mean that they don't actually care what system is in use, but just consider that particular one to be useless, in which case it [I]would be reasonable enough to jump through some meaningless hoops, check some pointless boxes, and the paperwork's all in order and you start next Monday.

No. They're saying that they wish some better system was in use instead, and not infrequently they actually have such a better system in mind, or can readily explain it. And being forced to take deliberate action to non-verbally express their thorough acceptance of the system they specifically don't agree with, by modifying their own person no less, for no less important a question than "what good is a human anyway", is deeply debasing. Being forced to undergo this because the alternative is just not getting a job doesn't make it any better: it makes the employer abusive, albeit probably unintentionally, and the speaker of such extremely practical advice complicit in enabling the abuse.

One can probably make a decent case that, in fact, no such alternative better system for valuing can reasonably exist, at least not without enormous reworking of massive parts of society. That doesn't fundamentally change the fact that people should be entitled to believe in such systems and work toward them if they choose, nor the tragedy of being forced to abjure beliefs to survive, so anyone offering such remarkably hardheaded counsel should, at the very least, make a strong effort to sympathize.

Liquor Box

2017-05-21, 02:11 AM

Because physical attractiveness is most of the time a rather good giveaway of a person's physical health. A healthy attractive body means healthy genes, and down to instinctual level, we're drawn towards mates which would mother/father healthier children. It's been part of our evolution and it's hard-coded in our brains.

Also, you would be surprised how many benefits you get from regular excercise. I'm not a gym junkie, but I do some crossfit and running, and the endorphines released from excercising will make your mood improve. Coupled with a healthy diet(doesn't mean cutting out junk food entirely, just not having McDonalds/Pizza 5 times a week) you will feel and eventually look better, and people will notice that.

You're sounding like the tumblrinas who dye their armpit hair blue, won't shave off their mustaches, wear shirts that say "You're thinner than me, not prettier" and think that because they feel entitled to landing themselves a Fabio, the world is unfair to them for not giving them a score of Fabios fawning for them and that "THE PARACHUTRIARCHY" is conspiring against them.

THIS. I used to be a social reject that didn't fit anywhere, pizza-faced nerd, always wore black clothes and listened to metal in my headphones all the time, being all angsty because "nobody understands what it's like to be me", trying to copy whatever trend was popular to "fit in".

Then I grew up, started dressing differently, eating better, doing some actual excercise(regardless how many articles they write saying so, "sexual stimulation/intercourse" is not the same as running 15 minutes in the threadmill), being more open about my opinions, I got some actual friends. Not "people I go to class with and see everyday", but people who would invite me to have a beer at their place, or that I would invite to come to my house for some BBQ and they actually came instead of skipping out on me. I got a girlfriend after I became more confident with myself by pretending I was confident with myself. When I look in the mirror I don't see the angsty teen being all emo because he doesn't have any real friends, I see the person I've been working myself up to be.

This is a good post.

As you say, attractiveness is partly conforming to the socially accepted definition of good-looking, and partly being confidetn enough that people want to buy whatever it is that you are selling. If you don't think you're attractive, not many others will. Finding it hard to be confident - fake it til you make it.

thamolas

2017-05-21, 11:06 AM

I used to be a social reject that didn't fit anywhere, pizza-faced nerd, always wore black clothes and listened to metal in my headphones all the time, being all angsty because "nobody understands what it's like to be me", trying to copy whatever trend was popular to "fit in".

Then I grew up, started dressing differently, eating better, doing some actual excercise(regardless how many articles they write saying so, "sexual stimulation/intercourse" is not the same as running 15 minutes in the threadmill), being more open about my opinions, I got some actual friends. Not "people I go to class with and see everyday", but people who would invite me to have a beer at their place, or that I would invite to come to my house for some BBQ and they actually came instead of skipping out on me. I got a girlfriend after I became more confident with myself by pretending I was confident with myself. When I look in the mirror I don't see the angsty teen being all emo because he doesn't have any real friends, I see the person I've been working myself up to be.

^^This is why personal development is important. Thanks for sharing!

Delicious Taffy

2017-05-21, 01:18 PM

Snip

This seems alright, on paper. I have rather long hair, myself, and would probably be a bit chapped if I had to cut most of it off to get a job. The thing, though, is this. While there are some jobs that expect a certain appearance, they're not always the only ones available. If my only option is to work at a fast food joint, sure, I'll absolutely cut my hair for it. It's only hair, after all, and I can grow it back any time. If I have other options, though, and they don't care what my hair looks like, I see no reason to hack it all off if I haven't been asked too. It all depends on what job you're applying for. If you're happy with your appearance and keep applying at places that require you to change it, you're needlessly creating problems for yourself. Just find somewhere else to work, if the option is available. Dress for the job you want, as they say.

Red Fel

2017-05-21, 03:54 PM

This seems alright, on paper. I have rather long hair, myself, and would probably be a bit chapped if I had to cut most of it off to get a job. The thing, though, is this. While there are some jobs that expect a certain appearance, they're not always the only ones available. If my only option is to work at a fast food joint, sure, I'll absolutely cut my hair for it. It's only hair, after all, and I can grow it back any time. If I have other options, though, and they don't care what my hair looks like, I see no reason to hack it all off if I haven't been asked too. It all depends on what job you're applying for. If you're happy with your appearance and keep applying at places that require you to change it, you're needlessly creating problems for yourself. Just find somewhere else to work, if the option is available. Dress for the job you want, as they say.

Exactly.

While it seems appalling that you have to "sell your principles to get a job," that's (1) a bit of an exaggeration, and (2) the price of admission. Face facts - nothing in life comes free. You need to give up something. Maybe it's money, maybe it's time, maybe it's energy or effort. And for some jobs, it's a sense of self. You absolutely do surrender certain aspects of your person, at least while on the job, in order to get the higher income, higher job security, and so forth. You miss out on time with family. You go without getting a highly visible tattoo. You avoid long lunches with friends during the day. You're careful what you post on Facebook or Twitter. That's the exchange.

Now, let's step back, because two things. First, unless you have certain religious or cultural views, I'm a bit reluctant to compare haircuts, body art, or attire to "principles." These are things that may be important to you, sure, and are an expression of who you are, but they're not exactly core values central to your person, at least not generally. There are jobs that require you to sell your principles. Jobs which require you to put the company before the client. Jobs which require you to lie for your employer. Jobs which entail being instrumental in the eviction or firing of others. Jobs which require you to say no to people in need. Those are jobs where your principles are tested. Getting a haircut or covering up your tattoos or what-have-you isn't generally like that.

Second, as Taffy points out, it's a voluntary exchange. There are jobs where they don't care about these things. There are jobs that don't care about your hair or tattoos, that don't care about your Facebook posts or whether you drink during the day. There are jobs where, because you're working part-time or flex-schedule, you can spend more time with your family - but you're probably not earning as much, or a pension, or benefits. There are jobs where you don't have to wear a suit every day, but you're probably not earning suit-job money. It's an exchange, and if other options are available to you, it's an exchange you can take or leave.

There are people who don't even realize it. I've read articles about high-power executives, lawyers, accountants, who don't even realize the exchange has happened. They give more and more of themselves to the firm, lose more and more freedom and time with family, and in exchange receive higher salary, bigger benefits, a nicer office, more respect and esteem in the organization, and they don't understand that. They go to therapists and say that they wish that they could have more time to see their kids, time to relax on the beach, vacation, something. They don't realize that all they have to do is give up the benefits. All they have to do is talk to their higher-ups about cutting their hours, or even leave the firm and join a smaller practice with less work to be done. They don't see it, because they never saw the exchange happening - from their perspective, it simply happened.

But it is always an exchange. Always. We give up pieces of ourselves to get what we want in the world. Maybe it's a haircut. Maybe it's a friendship. Maybe it's poker night. Maybe it's little Sally's recital. Everything is an exchange, everything a cost-benefit analysis. And the line falls where you say it does, not where anyone else says.

And if you say, "My hair defines me, I won't cut it for a job," that's your choice. That's where you've drawn the line. But you cannot then complain about the opportunities you have rejected for that reason. If I choose to walk instead of drive my car, I can't complain when I get to my destination late; if I choose to drive a fancy car instead of an economy car, I can't complain about the cost. I made my choices, I saw what was important to me and I paid the cost. That's life.

Scarlet Knight

2017-05-21, 05:13 PM

Delicious Taffy

2017-05-21, 06:36 PM

True story: my pharmacy hired a kid who dressed Goth. "Why would you hire him?" I asked. "Well", said the director, "He seemed ok, and really wanted the job. I didn't want to judge him, since I was a hippie when I was young. Besides, I feel no drug user in his right mind would expect to be hired dressed like that!"

He was fired in a month when caught on camera stealing drugs.

We ignored the hood of the cobra and got bit.

There are just some jobs you don't hire certain types of people for. If I go to pick up a prescription, I'm not expecting to see a Goth kid handling my pills. That's a look I associate with aimless rebellion and a general disregard for structure, and that's not the kind of person I'd want handling something as touchy as prescription drugs. I expect a pharmacist to at least look reasonably tidy, like they've put some obvious effort into looking clean. This is why I mentioned the "Dress for the job you want" guideline. If you wouldn't hire someone who looks and dresses the way you do for a certain job, don't expect anyone else to do the same.

For example, I have long hair, a goatee, and a mustache, and tend to dress in a very casual manner. Logo tees, dark jeans, and boots are the order of the day, and I'll frequently add a necklace, hat, or light jacket to that. When you picture that outfit, what sort of job would you assume I have, just based on the appearance? Unless you assume I just dress differently off the job, which you have no real reason to do, it's probably not a very fancy profession you're thinking of. You probably aren't picturing me in an office, restaurant, or bank, and you'd be right not to. Now, add a goofy, awkward demeanor, an odd sense of humor, and manner of speech containing probably excessive profanities. Is that a person you'd expect in any of the aforementioned professions? If I had to deal with me handling my food, paperwork, or money, I'd be very wary indeed. That's just how things are, and there's not really a problem with that.

If you can't separate your casual appearance from your professional one, that's on you. There are no rules saying you can't dress like you're about to hit the basketball court with the guys, when you're not putting in your 8 hours at Denny's. But once your shift starts, those shorts and that tank top had better be switched out for slacks and a polo, or you're not long for the job. And this is all just for an employment situation, without even beginning to get into things like dating, networking, and all manner of other scenarios.

Honestly, a workplace dress code is one of the simpler ways your appearance will affect your life, since it's very cut-and-dry. "Here's how we expect you to dress, look, and behave in this establishment. Now take this name tag and get to it." One you're off work, the rules change from one person to the next. Terry might think your detached, scruffy demeanor adds a nice degree of realism to the group's expectations. Marie, on the other hand, might think you're a total pill and need to do something about that patchy neckbeard of yours. Neither one is less valid than the other, but if you're expecting both to react the same way, you're on another planet. If you're fine with the way you look, behave, and carry yourself, find a niche you fit into naturally. Don't gripe about everyone else not letting you into theirs.

TuggyNE

2017-05-21, 09:44 PM

Exactly.

While it seems appalling that you have to "sell your principles to get a job," that's (1) a bit of an exaggeration, and (2) the price of admission. Face facts - nothing in life comes free. You need to give up something. Maybe it's money, maybe it's time, maybe it's energy or effort. And for some jobs, it's a sense of self. You absolutely do surrender certain aspects of your person, at least while on the job, in order to get the higher income, higher job security, and so forth. You miss out on time with family. You go without getting a highly visible tattoo. You avoid long lunches with friends during the day. You're careful what you post on Facebook or Twitter. That's the exchange.

Now, let's step back, because two things. First, unless you have certain religious or cultural views, I'm a bit reluctant to compare haircuts, body art, or attire to "principles." These are things that may be important to you, sure, and are an expression of who you are, but they're not exactly core values central to your person, at least not generally. There are jobs that require you to sell your principles. Jobs which require you to put the company before the client. Jobs which require you to lie for your employer. Jobs which entail being instrumental in the eviction or firing of others. Jobs which require you to say no to people in need. Those are jobs where your principles are tested. Getting a haircut or covering up your tattoos or what-have-you isn't generally like that.

Second, as Taffy points out, it's a voluntary exchange. There are jobs where they don't care about these things. There are jobs that don't care about your hair or tattoos, that don't care about your Facebook posts or whether you drink during the day. There are jobs where, because you're working part-time or flex-schedule, you can spend more time with your family - but you're probably not earning as much, or a pension, or benefits. There are jobs where you don't have to wear a suit every day, but you're probably not earning suit-job money. It's an exchange, and if other options are available to you, it's an exchange you can take or leave.

There are people who don't even realize it. I've read articles about high-power executives, lawyers, accountants, who don't even realize the exchange has happened. They give more and more of themselves to the firm, lose more and more freedom and time with family, and in exchange receive higher salary, bigger benefits, a nicer office, more respect and esteem in the organization, and they don't understand that. They go to therapists and say that they wish that they could have more time to see their kids, time to relax on the beach, vacation, something. They don't realize that all they have to do is give up the benefits. All they have to do is talk to their higher-ups about cutting their hours, or even leave the firm and join a smaller practice with less work to be done. They don't see it, because they never saw the exchange happening - from their perspective, it simply happened.

But it is always an exchange. Always. We give up pieces of ourselves to get what we want in the world. Maybe it's a haircut. Maybe it's a friendship. Maybe it's poker night. Maybe it's little Sally's recital. Everything is an exchange, everything a cost-benefit analysis. And the line falls where you say it does, not where anyone else says.

And if you say, "My hair defines me, I won't cut it for a job," that's your choice. That's where you've drawn the line. But you cannot then complain about the opportunities you have rejected for that reason. If I choose to walk instead of drive my car, I can't complain when I get to my destination late; if I choose to drive a fancy car instead of an economy car, I can't complain about the cost. I made my choices, I saw what was important to me and I paid the cost. That's life.

I do (shockingly) agree with all this. It is one's own choice to sell principles; sometimes they aren't worth much, after all. And the expression of hair specifically is pretty lightweight.

The problem I had came down to two things, really; first was that this anonymous advised person was talking about how they valued themselves (and presumably others, and vice versa), which I consider to potentially be a fairly important principle. And second was that the post I responded to was specifically trying to downplay this trade to such an extent, and indeed almost shaming the person for being hesitant and disliking the unpleasant choice they had, as though they shouldn't ever even consider the tradeoff, as though any job would be worth making such a trade without any hesitation.

Obviously, if your values conflict (such as your value of money and your value of how humans are valued) you'll have to make a choice. A post just dismissing one of those two sides out of hand, as though the anonymous advisee's values were completely irrelevant (because of course they should value money, and all that other stuff? Pooh pooh!), is what I found so obnoxious.

factotum

2017-05-22, 01:24 AM

Unless you assume I just dress differently off the job, which you have no real reason to do

Um...why not? Dressing differently while working and while at home is totally what most people do. Business people don't lounge around on the beach in three-piece suits and ties when they're on holiday, for example.

Aedilred

2017-05-22, 01:42 AM

kyoryu

2017-05-22, 10:42 AM

When I first read this, I thought it sounded reasonable enough, but still somehow left a bad taste in my mouth. Then I thought about it some more this afternoon and realized the problem I have with this response: it's telling the person to sell their principles about human worth so they can have a job.

Not at all.

It's saying that you can't simultaneously claim that your hair is unimportant and doesn't define you or your worth, and then immediately claim that your hair utterly defines you and you can't cut it.

Either it matters, and it's as statement, or it's not. Pick one.

The problem I had came down to two things, really; first was that this anonymous advised person was talking about how they valued themselves (and presumably others, and vice versa), which I consider to potentially be a fairly important principle. And second was that the post I responded to was specifically trying to downplay this trade to such an extent, and indeed almost shaming the person for being hesitant and disliking the unpleasant choice they had, as though they shouldn't ever even consider the tradeoff, as though any job would be worth making such a trade without any hesitation.

Actually, he thought it was a really good point, and it made him think. This wasn't a random anonymous person, but someone I had talked to a number of times on a particular forum.

Also, FWIW, I've had long hair for a good chunk of my adult life.

Also, IIRC, the actual comment was less "so when are you cutting it" and more "so, then it shouldn't be a big deal to cut it, right?" It wasn't "you should do this", but really "clearly, you're saying that hair is important, so why can't it be important to both sides?"

Bohandas

2017-05-22, 11:36 AM

Assuming you're not talking about anything that could be a clear sign of contagious disease or having just murdered somebody) People care about appearance because deep down, in the lower areas of out brains, we are still beasts

Donnadogsoth

2017-05-22, 12:52 PM

tensai_oni

2017-05-22, 01:28 PM

Odd when people who go out of their way to dress abnormally complain when they get treated abnormally. It's as if they expect their abnormal fashion choices should be accepted as normal, when, if they were accepted as normal, it would defeat the point of dressing that way and so they would have to dress even more extremely for effect, while still expressing umbrage over incurring negative reactions to their abnormality.

What makes you think that people dress "abnormally" because they want to be treated as weird outcasts, as opposed to because that's what they like and feel comfortable with?

Strange choice of words by the way. Do you consider something like wearing black leather to be abnormal and that it shouldn't be accepted as normal by polite society? Long hair on a man? Short hair on a woman? Or perhaps, a woman wearing trousers and not a skirt?

More generally, this thread's new topic really shows how quick to judge others and tell them to conform people on this forum are. As long as you are hygienic and neat, and more importantly - behave in a professional manner, it shouldn't matter how you look like. This even includes the example of a goth or emo kid selling you medicine. I'd sooner take one if they behave charmingly polite and like they know what they're talking about, over someone who looks like a stereotypical professional doctor but clearly doesn't give a damn.

And yes, the sad truth is, there are people who will judge you by looks alone. Quite a lot of them, in fact.

But just because they exist doesn't mean it's a good thing, or that it should be spread further.

Kalmageddon

2017-05-22, 02:07 PM

What makes you think that people dress "abnormally" because they want to be treated as weird outcasts, as opposed to because that's what they like and feel comfortable with?
.
Special snowflake syndrome.
And of course they don't want to be treated like social outcasts, they want the approval of their social circle, while also being weird enough as to get the occasional disapproving look from those outside of it because, hey, if someone bothers to oppose you it must mean your statements (fashion or otherwise) have weight.
People are shallow like that.

kyoryu

2017-05-22, 02:08 PM

I'm not telling anyone to conform - I'd be a hyprocrite if I did so, given that I had long hair a good part of my adult life.

What I'm saying is simple: One of the following must be true:

A) What you wear and how you present yourself doesn't matter and doesn't reflect on who you are, in which case changing it should be no big deal to you.

B) What you wear and how you present yourself *does* matter, in which case it's reasonable for other people to take that as information about you and at least partially make decisions based on that.

In other words, either you believe your appearance reflects on you and your choices contain useful information, or you don't. But if you believe your appearance is meaningful, you need to accept that others find it meaningful as well.

Donnadogsoth

2017-05-22, 02:09 PM

What makes you think that people dress "abnormally" because they want to be treated as weird outcasts, as opposed to because that's what they like and feel comfortable with?

Strange choice of words by the way. Do you consider something like wearing black leather to be abnormal and that it shouldn't be accepted as normal by polite society? Long hair on a man? Short hair on a woman? Or perhaps, a woman wearing trousers and not a skirt?

More generally, this thread's new topic really shows how quick to judge others and tell them to conform people on this forum are. As long as you are hygienic and neat, and more importantly - behave in a professional manner, it shouldn't matter how you look like. This even includes the example of a goth or emo kid selling you medicine. I'd sooner take one if they behave charmingly polite and like they know what they're talking about, over someone who looks like a stereotypical professional doctor but clearly doesn't give a damn.

And yes, the sad truth is, there are people who will judge you by looks alone. Quite a lot of them, in fact.

But just because they exist doesn't mean it's a good thing, or that it should be spread further.

Why would someone wear black leather if wearing it didn't mean anything? If all fashion choices became equal tomorrow, some people might wear black leather just for the hell of it, but, black leather wouldn't mean anything, it wouldn't have any resonance or allusions such as strong, tough, rebellious, possibly Satanic or biker gang associated, carnivore, don't-mess-with-me attitude, etc. If black leather didn't mean any of that, most people who wear black leather today wouldn't wear black leather.

People who dress to extremes are doing so largely for effect. They're making a "fashion statement". And, they're fools if they then turn around and bitch about being treated differently, because odds are they wouldn't dress that way if their fashion choice didn't provoke. "Oh I've gotta be me" should be weighed against "You're a freak and make people uncomfortable with your senselessly provocative wardrobe".

Look what happened with piercings. Started out with boys getting their ears pierced. Then that wasn't enough, so people got this pierced and that pierced. By now, people are getting their noses cut off and horns implanted in their heads to try to get a rise out of the squares. And when that doesn't work anymore, if they can they'll get their entire head pierced so it looks like they're got a metal carrying handle coming out of their skull. And then when people get used to that freakishness, what's next? Permanently walking around on fire? Their face and genitals switched places?

I used to dress strangely, and I felt that foolish resentment at others not respecting my strangeness. This sort of feeling is really foolish because it pretends that all fashion choices should be equal, which of course destroys the meaning of fashion. If I were born with a portwine stain on my face that might be cause for pleas of tolerance, but wearing corpsepaint and black leather to a job interview at a McDonald's might not.

Red Fel

2017-05-22, 02:31 PM

*SNIP*

Ehh... This particular thought pattern goes to some fairly dark places. It feels like you're saying, "Why would you dress like that if you didn't want to be thought of in a certain way?" And that thought has some unpleasant connotations.

Here's a reason: Maybe how people think of me when I dress a certain way never plays into my calculus, because I don't care. Maybe I dress that way because I like the colors or the fabrics, because it's comfortable, because I find it empowering. Maybe I'm not doing it for any attention from you; maybe I don't care to who or what you pay attention.

There are a lot of reasons to wear leather, not all of them having to do with what a spectator thinks. There are a lot of reasons to wear black, same. Ergo, there are reasons to wear black leather that have nothing to do with what a spectator thinks.

Let's say I go out one night, clubbing or what have you, wearing a three-piece black suit, red shirt, black tie. Am I automatically doing it to get attention? Maybe I love dressing up in a three-piece suit; it makes me feel sharp and classy. Maybe I love the mix of red and black; the black is slimming and the red makes me feel powerful. What do I care what you think? Why should it "mean" anything what I'm wearing? I'm wearing it because I like it, it feels comfortable and makes me feel great. I'm not doing it for any effect on you.

You hip to my jive, Jackson?

warty goblin

2017-05-22, 03:04 PM

Delicious Taffy

2017-05-22, 03:23 PM

X2 Snip Chain

I was about to respond in a similar fashion. When the weather permits it, I'll put on black jeans, a black or brown logo tee, and my signature black leather jacket, slick sunglasses optional. I don't do it because I'm trying to look like a strong, tough, rebellious, carnivore from a Satanic biker club. I do it because it makes me look incredibly cool, to myself and to my close companions. If it makes me look like part of a biker club, all the better, because the clubs in this area are generally viewed as a positive influence on the community.

But I'm not doing it for you. When I put on my trademark narrow shades, I'm not doing it to impress anyone but myself. The logo on my shirt is not there to ensure you feel offended and outraged. The tenebrous denim of my jeans is not worn in the hopes that you'll associate me with a mythological king of the underworld. I never put on my black leather jacket intending for you to see it and think "This man wants to be viewed as an outcast." The only "statement" I'm making when I put on that outfit is "I enjoy the way I look in this outfit."

It doesn't have a ****ing thing to do with you.

2D8HP

2017-05-22, 03:52 PM

As I said during my long previous post:

...men tend to enforce conformity more.

If the guys you work with typically wear...

During the last recession (so 2009-ish), I took a class at my union's training center on "orbital tube welding" (something that's typically done in semi-conductor chip plants), and I quickly figured out that there was no need for me to wear the dirty tool filled overalls I wear most of my waking hours in that class.

I keeped the work boots on but instead of denim I wore my most comfortable clothes which is a cotton shirt and some wool tailored slacks that fit well, and consequently are my most comfortable pants.

I caught so much grief.

"You look like a banker, what's wrong with you?"

The grief wasn't worth it.

I kept the cotton shirt (I wasn't going to be pushed around that much), but I went back to wearing the denim jeans, that I seem to be forever cursed to wear.

I would prefer to work around women, as they let you dress as comfortable or as sharp as you want, instead of the stupid jeans, t-shirts, and "hoodies" that peer pressure forces us into.

If the clothes are "casual" why are they less comfortable?

My "special occasion" (weddings and funerals) clothes feel better against my skin.

Down with casual!

Donnadogsoth

2017-05-22, 04:03 PM

kyoryu

2017-05-22, 04:12 PM

What's also interesting is that "socially acceptable" changes drastically based on environment.

I work in the game industry. If I showed up for an interview in a suit and tie... it would not necessarily be a good thing. Even most non-gaming tech jobs, that's not super awesome.

Appropriate wear to a biker bar is not the same as appropriate wear to work at a bank (RUBs aside). Wearing either of them to the opposite is a... not-very-subtle way of telling them that you really don't care about respecting them.

Delicious Taffy

2017-05-22, 04:26 PM

You are a social animal and what clothing means to you is at least in part a function of what signals that clothing is sending to others. If you think an outfit or accoutrement is "cool" that's partly because that coolness is recognised by others around you. It's a fallacy to think "I'm only dressing for myself!"--what you like to wear is itself partly socially determined. Thousand to one odds you don't dress in ways the general population thinks are hideous.

I think you're missing the point. Whether someone's idea of cool is influenced, to some degree, by the opinions of others, is of no consequence. If I feel cool wearing a certain outfit, that feeling is no less legitimate just because other people also think it's cool. I'm still not dressing to make you think I'm cool, which I believe is what Red Fel was trying to point out. People can have their own socially-acceptable preferences without slavishly adhering to what the general population finds acceptable. But I don't think you really have a point to make, since you're deflecting with shallow observations anyone could point out.

What's also interesting is that "socially acceptable" changes drastically based on environment.

I work in the game industry. If I showed up for an interview in a suit and tie... it would not necessarily be a good thing. Even most non-gaming tech jobs, that's not super awesome.

Appropriate wear to a biker bar is not the same as appropriate wear to work at a bank (RUBs aside). Wearing either of them to the opposite is a... not-very-subtle way of telling them that you really don't care about respecting them.

This is very true, and I touched on this in my longer post. As you say, the environment you're in drastically affects whether your appearance is acceptable. Of course, if you're not actively trying to fit into a particular environment, and everyone is aware of this, it's not necessarily disrespectful to wear a certain type of outfit where it otherwise wouldn't belong. For example, a large, burly biker dressed from head to toe in scruffy leather might have a mother who visits him at the clubhouse after church, dressed up in her Sunday best. She's not particularly dressed for that environment, but I doubt anyone is going to feel disrespected by her presence. Likewise, if said biker visits said mother at her church after service, he may turn a few heads, but most people probably won't be offended that he's there. Of course, I can only speak from the perspective of my own region, so your mileage may vary.

Liquor Box

2017-05-22, 04:51 PM

Ehh... This particular thought pattern goes to some fairly dark places. It feels like you're saying, "Why would you dress like that if you didn't want to be thought of in a certain way?" And that thought has some unpleasant connotations.

Here's a reason: Maybe how people think of me when I dress a certain way never plays into my calculus, because I don't care. Maybe I dress that way because I like the colors or the fabrics, because it's comfortable, because I find it empowering. Maybe I'm not doing it for any attention from you; maybe I don't care to who or what you pay attention.

There are a lot of reasons to wear leather, not all of them having to do with what a spectator thinks. There are a lot of reasons to wear black, same. Ergo, there are reasons to wear black leather that have nothing to do with what a spectator thinks.

Let's say I go out one night, clubbing or what have you, wearing a three-piece black suit, red shirt, black tie. Am I automatically doing it to get attention? Maybe I love dressing up in a three-piece suit; it makes me feel sharp and classy. Maybe I love the mix of red and black; the black is slimming and the red makes me feel powerful. What do I care what you think? Why should it "mean" anything what I'm wearing? I'm wearing it because I like it, it feels comfortable and makes me feel great. I'm not doing it for any effect on you.

You hip to my jive, Jackson?

This seems to me to be an extension of Donna's point, rather than a argument against it.

Donna's overall point seemed to be that people shouldn't be surprised by the obvious consequences of dressing a certain way

She said that, if you dress with the intent of being perceived in a non-conformist way and thereby get the benefits of non-conformity, don't be surprised that you will also lose the benefit of conformity. A person who dresses as a biker to look tough, shouldn't be surprised if the police look his way twice.

But surely it is equally true to say that if you dress without regard how you might be perceived, don't be surprised if you lose the benefits of being perceived a certain way. A person who dresses in a three price suit to go to the pub, shouldn't be surprised if people are less likely to engage with him.

Surely the point is simple - the way people dress can serve many purposes, importantly including sending social signals (like what social group you identify with). If you send signals that will lower a particular groups perception of you (either deliberately, or because you don't care), that's your choice, but don't be surprised if a consequence of that is that that group's initial perception of you is less positive than it might have been.

To bring it back to employment (where this limb began) - if you were going for a job as a Yellowstone Park ranger, and turn up in leathers (because you want to be perceived as fearsome) or a three piece suit (for your own reasons, without caring about people's perception), don't be surprised if you don't get the job.

Frontier

2017-05-22, 05:07 PM

It's biology pure and simple. Good appearance means good genes which means good chance of breeding which means all benefits bestowed upon that person to excel in life to spread his/her genes.

Aedilred

2017-05-22, 05:09 PM

Bohandas

2017-05-22, 05:26 PM

It's biology pure and simple. Good appearance means good genes which means good chance of breeding which means all benefits bestowed upon that person to excel in life to spread his/her genes.

That's all well and good for the dating scene, but doesn't fully explain why people care so much elsewhere. It could partly explain it even elsewhere when it comes to members of the opposite or desired sex, but falls flat when - for example - two straight women are criticizing each other's appearancees. In these cases I think it comes down to vestigial or malfunctioning aspects of visual processing, as well as vestigial elements of culture from the barbaric pre-Roman days of tiny tribes that actively set themselves apart from each other rather than large nations and organizations

Donnadogsoth

2017-05-22, 05:56 PM

I think you're missing the point. Whether someone's idea of cool is influenced, to some degree, by the opinions of others, is of no consequence. If I feel cool wearing a certain outfit, that feeling is no less legitimate just because other people also think it's cool. I'm still not dressing to make you think I'm cool, which I believe is what Red Fel was trying to point out. People can have their own socially-acceptable preferences without slavishly adhering to what the general population finds acceptable. But I don't think you really have a point to make, since you're deflecting with shallow observations anyone could point out.

I don't remember addressing what is "legitimate" or not.

Humans are mimetic animals. Very difficult to imagine someone, outside of all role-modelling or cultural reference, would, for instance, find wearing sunglasses (other than for purely practical reasons) something they feel "expresses their inner self" and so that which they must do. I suppose we could imagine some primitive tribesman affecting sunglasses, but even then, if it made him look like a dork to his fellows he would probably lose them or just play the fool. When people say "It's just me, it has no other meaning" I don't believe them. Who you are is largely social. Even if you randomly thumbed through a fashion catalogue from ninety years ago and said, "Say, that apparel looks dandy!" you're still comparing it to the apparel of today and what these things all mean to you consciously and subconsciously.

As to the other point that dressing out of context leads to social consequences, others have addressed this well enough.

Aedilred

2017-05-22, 06:00 PM

That's all well and good for the dating scene, but doesn't fully explain why people care so much elsewhere. It could partly explain it even elsewhere when it comes to members of the opposite or desired sex, but falls flat when - for example - two straight women are criticizing each other's appearancees. In these cases I think it comes down to vestigial or malfunctioning aspects of visual processing, as well as vestigial elements of culture from the barbaric pre-Roman days of tiny tribes that actively set themselves apart from each other rather than large nations and organizations

This assumes that there's anything about our social interactions which isn't about sex :smallwink: At least a bit.

In the example you give, the women may be subconsciously sizing each other up as competition for a desirable mate, with the criticism of appearance resulting from that. A woman who is more attractive than they are is a threat: a woman who is less attractive is a useful point of comparison to demonstrate their own desirability.

For the record I don't think that's necessarily entirely what's going on on all occasions, but as a significant potential factor I don't think it can be discounted.

veti

2017-05-22, 06:15 PM

Ehh... This particular thought pattern goes to some fairly dark places. It feels like you're saying, "Why would you dress like that if you didn't want to be thought of in a certain way?" And that thought has some unpleasant connotations.

Yes, but... unfortunately, and most unusually for you, your post fails to refute it.

The thing is, you know that what you wear affects how people see you. And "people" can only mean "all people who see you". Your own examples acknowledge as much: even though you're actively trying, you still can't pull off a convincing justification for wearing a black suit that has nothing to do with other people's perceptions. Few people would deny that's part of the reason they wear what they do.

Now, if I see someone in a black three-piece suit and a red shirt, or vice-versa for that matter, I'm going to think "striking". If they wear it well, I may think "stylish"; if badly, I may think "oh dear". But that's as far as it goes, because when all I do is see them, it has - as you say - nothing to do with me. Not my business, at that point.

But if this person comes up and talks to me - they strike up a conversation, they want something from me - at that point my perception of them is my business, and those clothes become relevant to me, and I'm entitled to make, and act on, judgments based on them.

And if they're asking me for a job... well, then it's very much my business. Not only because I'm going to have to spend a lot of time with this person, but also because whatever effect they're having on me, they're going to have a similar or parallel or at least comparably strong effect on other people I work with, on customers, and on my whole organisation. At that point it would be almost criminally negligent on my part to ignore what they look like.

Knaight

2017-05-22, 06:32 PM

And if they're asking me for a job... well, then it's very much my business. Not only because I'm going to have to spend a lot of time with this person, but also because whatever effect they're having on me, they're going to have a similar or parallel or at least comparably strong effect on other people I work with, on customers, and on my whole organisation. At that point it would be almost criminally negligent on my part to ignore what they look like.

In the context of clothing, this is true to an extent. There's a lot to appearance beyond that though. Someone having a very symmetrical, very good looking face has absolutely no bearing on their capacity to do work in a technical field, and taking that into account is allowing an implicit bias to make your selection bias worse. The same thing applies to someone who has an unfortunate set of facial features that are conventionally hideous.

Taking a step back, we've also been talking about clothing in the context of negotiating the current cultural space around it as if that space was immutable. Obviously negotiating the current cultural space is critical, but there are ways to shift it, as is neatly established by the mere fact that styles change. Part of the way to do this is to attach judgments to the judgments made about clothing. To use just one example, take women wearing pants. Today, it's pretty uncontroversial in a lot of places where it was considered downright radical 60 years ago. Part of what changed that was the cultural reception to responses to women wearing pants. If "That's unfeminine and unprofessional, and I'm against it" is responded to with "You're completely right" it encourages the response, if it's responded to with criticism the response is discouraged, even if the criticism is just something like "Nobody but you actually cares; get over yourself". These responses have also done a pretty good job killing nonsense like the cultural restriction on wearing white after labor day in the U.S.

The accusations of shallowness, throwing around terms like "fashion police", and telling people to mind their own business when they opine about other people's clothing all have value here, and it's worth remembering that even when they do get a bit irritating.

Delicious Taffy

2017-05-22, 06:46 PM

It's interesting to see just how deep a conversation can be with a subject as simple as how a person dresses. I'd say most bases have been pretty thoroughly covered, in regards to how your clothes affect and are affected by the opinions of others. Granted, some statements haven't gone beyond "This is a thing", but most of what I've read has been pretty thoughtful. There are more layers to this than I'd previously considered.

Aedilred

2017-05-22, 07:09 PM

...These responses have also done a pretty good job killing nonsense like the cultural restriction on wearing white after labor day in the U.S.

The accusations of shallowness, throwing around terms like "fashion police", and telling people to mind their own business when they opine about other people's clothing all have value here, and it's worth remembering that even when they do get a bit irritating.

Perhaps, though I do often wonder whether the destruction of formality (an ongoing process), particularly with regard to dress codes, is something of a pyrrhic victory for those who rail against it. In the context of this thread, and also my personal experience, many (most?) of the people who rail against dress codes seem to be people who have no idea how to dress themselves. For such people, a dress code is (or should be) a godsend, because it absolves you of any responsibility for making a decision you are uncomfortable with making (and possibly unqualified for).

It is something that many men observe when they work in fields where suits are (or were) expected. With the principal decision about "what to wear" taken out of your hands, it cuts down on stress and agitation, both in assembling a wardrobe and in getting dressed on any particular day. It's also more egalitarian, in its way, than a "wear what you like" dress code, because everybody is dressed roughly the same without regard to fashion sense or disposable income. The same is often said in debates over whether children should wear school uniforms.*

(There's an irony about geeks/nerds in that they tend to love rules, will debate for decades over classification of "canon" or categorisation of genres of sci-fi, music, or whatever, and have a tendency to work in rules-based fields like computing, science, engineering or mathematics... and yet hate social rules and conventions and will rebel whether overtly or passive-aggressively against them at any opportunity. This despite its being apparent that many of them lack the natural social aptitude to find their own way in the absence of said rules. I am generalising, of course, but I think there's a trend).

This isn't to say that all rules are necessarily good, but I also think that just because a rule is arbitrary doesn't necessarily mean it has no value. Where it's discriminatory against a certain group (e.g. the women wearing trousers thing) then it should probably be amended or abolished. But where the reason for disliking the rule is just because, you know, I don't like The Man telling me what I can do, and it's none of his business what I wear at work**, then very often the problem will lie with the individual rather than the rule - and if they can get the chip off their shoulder they might well find the rule is working in their interest anyway.

I have, eventually, settled on clothes I can wear in informal environments which I am satisfied look good and require minimal case-by-case thought. (Perhaps not coincidentally, they bear some resemblance to a suit). But it's taken me years of trial and error to reach that point and I think I've been more successful in that regard than most - certainly most in the geek social circles I tend to occupy. I remain somewhat wistful for the days of yore when dress codes were much more commonplace.

There's nothing you can do about your bone structure, and some people are just more or less fortunate than others in that regard. But there are still things you can do to maximise your attractiveness and overall presentability (see earlier comments about fitness and hygiene). When people like the OP complain about the unfairness of it all, a complaint that is not unfounded, it is nevertheless often the case that they have not taken said steps to offset any disadvantages they might have. You might never run as fast as Usain Bolt, but if you shoot yourself in the foot you have nobody to blame for your resulting poor finish but yourself.

*Of course, there are always going to be ways for the "elite" (whether financial or fashion-aware) to distinguish themselves. I had an entertaining conversation over the weekend about the different variations of "black tie" available, much to the astonishment of a female observer who had no idea that there were so many permutations. But while there is endless room for debate over some aspects of it and some element of personal choice to be expressed, it's almost impossible to wear black tie "wrong" unless you're not actually wearing it at all, which makes it much easier to interpret as a dress code than, say, "smart casual".

**What you wear at work is, in fact, by definition, [part of] your employer's business.

Liquor Box

2017-05-22, 07:16 PM

In the context of clothing, this is true to an extent. There's a lot to appearance beyond that though. Someone having a very symmetrical, very good looking face has absolutely no bearing on their capacity to do work in a technical field, and taking that into account is allowing an implicit bias to make your selection bias worse. The same thing applies to someone who has an unfortunate set of facial features that are conventionally hideous.

Taking a step back, we've also been talking about clothing in the context of negotiating the current cultural space around it as if that space was immutable. Obviously negotiating the current cultural space is critical, but there are ways to shift it, as is neatly established by the mere fact that styles change. Part of the way to do this is to attach judgments to the judgments made about clothing. To use just one example, take women wearing pants. Today, it's pretty uncontroversial in a lot of places where it was considered downright radical 60 years ago. Part of what changed that was the cultural reception to responses to women wearing pants. If "That's unfeminine and unprofessional, and I'm against it" is responded to with "You're completely right" it encourages the response, if it's responded to with criticism the response is discouraged, even if the criticism is just something like "Nobody but you actually cares; get over yourself". These responses have also done a pretty good job killing nonsense like the cultural restriction on wearing white after labor day in the U.S.

The accusations of shallowness, throwing around terms like "fashion police", and telling people to mind their own business when they opine about other people's clothing all have value here, and it's worth remembering that even when they do get a bit irritating.

Can you point to anything suggesting that the cultural shift to it being acceptable for women to wear pants was triggered by people saying "Nobody but you actually cares; get over yourself" or similar?

The wikipedia page suggests that it became more normal for women to wear pants because during WW2 they went to work in jobs previously inhabited by men. Their own clothes were impractical, and they wore their husbands clothes. From then on it became more and more fashionable.

Women increasingly wore trousers as leisurewear in the 1920s and 30s. In the early 20th century female pilots and other working women often wore trousers. Actresses Marlene Dietrich and Katharine Hepburn were often photographed in trousers from the 1930s. During World War II, women working in industrial work in war service wore their husbands' (suitably altered) trousers, and in the post-war era trousers were still common casual wear for gardening, socialising, and other leisure pursuits.

Similarly, in Britain during the Second World War, because of the rationing of clothing, many women took to wearing their husbands' civilian clothes to work while their husbands were away in the armed forces. This was partly because they were seen as work garments, and partly to allow women to keep their clothing allowance for other uses. As the men's clothes wore out, replacements were needed, so that by the summer of 1944 it was reported that sales of women's trousers were five times more than in the previous year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_trousers

Liquor Box

2017-05-22, 07:20 PM

It is something that many men observe when they work in fields where suits are (or were) expected. With the principal decision about "what to wear" taken out of your hands, it cuts down on stress and agitation, both in assembling a wardrobe and in getting dressed on any particular day.

As someone who works in a field where a suit is still required, I am most grateful that it is now acceptable to wear your suit without a tie most days. I hate ties.

veti

2017-05-22, 09:57 PM

As someone who works in a field where a suit is still required, I am most grateful that it is now acceptable to wear your suit without a tie most days. I hate ties.

Mutter grumble kids these days grumble mutter lawn. If you're not wearing a tie, then you're not wearing a suit. Sorry. You may be wearing a matching jacket and trousers, but that's about the best that can be said for it.

Personally I love ties. It's one of only two points on the Male Formal Businesswear template where you can express some individuality (the other is socks, and they're not nearly so prominent). A beautiful hand-painted silk tie can set off one's appearance and flaunt one's impeccable taste, without violating the formal dress convention.

Aliquid

2017-05-22, 10:11 PM

Mutter grumble kids these days grumble mutter lawn. If you're not wearing a tie, then you're not wearing a suit. Sorry. You may be wearing a matching jacket and trousers, but that's about the best that can be said for it.

Personally I love ties. It's one of only two points on the Male Formal Businesswear template where you can express some individuality (the other is socks, and they're not nearly so prominent). A beautiful hand-painted silk tie can set off one's appearance and flaunt one's impeccable taste, without violating the formal dress convention.I'm actually 100% with you on this. I often tell people that ties (and socks) allow for individuality and creativity in the male business world. There are more options for interesting shirts these days, but that comes and goes.

From my perspective, matching jacket and trousers without a tie just looks wrong... like you forgot something. If I don't want to wear a tie, I go for the complementing sports coat/pant combo, "business casual" look.

Bohandas

2017-05-23, 12:33 AM

I'm a bit doubtful of the idea that you'd be able to get away with wearing an actually expressive tie in any situation where the tie is mandatory.

Knaight

2017-05-23, 12:51 AM

Bohandas

2017-05-23, 12:53 AM

Ehh... This particular thought pattern goes to some fairly dark places. It feels like you're saying, "Why would you dress like that if you didn't want to be thought of in a certain way?" And that thought has some unpleasant connotations.

Here's a reason: Maybe how people think of me when I dress a certain way never plays into my calculus, because I don't care. Maybe I dress that way because I like the colors or the fabrics, because it's comfortable, because I find it empowering. Maybe I'm not doing it for any attention from you; maybe I don't care to who or what you pay attention.

There are a lot of reasons to wear leather, not all of them having to do with what a spectator thinks. There are a lot of reasons to wear black, same. Ergo, there are reasons to wear black leather that have nothing to do with what a spectator thinks.

Let's say I go out one night, clubbing or what have you, wearing a three-piece black suit, red shirt, black tie. Am I automatically doing it to get attention? Maybe I love dressing up in a three-piece suit; it makes me feel sharp and classy. Maybe I love the mix of red and black; the black is slimming and the red makes me feel powerful. What do I care what you think? Why should it "mean" anything what I'm wearing? I'm wearing it because I like it, it feels comfortable and makes me feel great. I'm not doing it for any effect on you.

You hip to my jive, Jackson?

Seconded. I've gotta say that personally everything I wear comes down to comfort and utility.

Perhaps, though I do often wonder whether the destruction of formality (an ongoing process), particularly with regard to dress codes, is something of a pyrrhic victory for those who rail against it. In the context of this thread, and also my personal experience, many (most?) of the people who rail against dress codes seem to be people who have no idea how to dress themselves. For such people, a dress code is (or should be) a godsend, because it absolves you of any responsibility for making a decision you are uncomfortable with making (and possibly unqualified for).

It is something that many men observe when they work in fields where suits are (or were) expected. With the principal decision about "what to wear" taken out of your hands, it cuts down on stress and agitation, both in assembling a wardrobe and in getting dressed on any particular day. It's also more egalitarian, in its way, than a "wear what you like" dress code, because everybody is dressed roughly the same without regard to fashion sense or disposable income. The same is often said in debates over whether children should wear school uniforms.*

(There's an irony about geeks/nerds in that they tend to love rules, will debate for decades over classification of "canon" or categorisation of genres of sci-fi, music, or whatever, and have a tendency to work in rules-based fields like computing, science, engineering or mathematics... and yet hate social rules and conventions and will rebel whether overtly or passive-aggressively against them at any opportunity. This despite its being apparent that many of them lack the natural social aptitude to find their own way in the absence of said rules. I am generalising, of course, but I think there's a trend).

So like I said, my clothing preferences come down to comfort and utility and dress codes stand in the way of that and obstruct it. Formal clothing in particular is like the polar opposite of comfortable and utilitarian clothing.

Sci-fi trivia does not impose upon and inconvenience me the way dresscodes do

There's nothing you can do about your bone structure

I think there's cosmetic surgery for that

factotum

2017-05-23, 02:06 AM

Mutter grumble kids these days grumble mutter lawn. If you're not wearing a tie, then you're not wearing a suit.

That also is a matter of perspective. I remember once turning up at a weekend work do wearing a plain green t-shirt and a blazer, and my workmates were quite amused that I'd turned up "wearing a suit" (their actual words).

paddyfool

2017-05-23, 04:53 AM

As someone who works in a field where a suit is still required, I am most grateful that it is now acceptable to wear your suit without a tie most days. I hate ties.

Regarding the great tie debate: I personally dislike them as highly impractical dangly things (there's a reason nobody in any profession that works with their hands for anything besides pens, mice or keyboards uses one, from traditional surgeons and musicians wearing bow ties to mechanics wearing overalls; a tie is effectively a "white collar office worker" badge of status). If you insist on wearing one, and aren't working in an office, you should either put it in a clip or go full fop with your dress code; anything in between is just annoying.

Of course, I also went to a school at one time that made their own hideous ties mandatory, so I may be biased.

Aliquid

2017-05-23, 08:59 AM

Regarding the great tie debate: I personally dislike them as highly impractical dangly things (there's a reason nobody in any profession that works with their hands for anything besides pens, mice or keyboards uses one, from traditional surgeons and musicians wearing bow ties to mechanics wearing overalls; a tie is effectively a "white collar office worker" badge of status). If you insist on wearing one, and aren't working in an office, you should either put it in a clip or go full fop with your dress code; anything in between is just annoying.

Of course, I also went to a school at one time that made their own hideous ties mandatory, so I may be biased.If you look at photos from the 1930s, you will see that everyone wore a tie: mechanics, surgeons... etc. So I don't know about the white collar worker badge of status. Maybe that was just the job where people didn't keep dying through strangulation.

Bohandas

2017-05-23, 10:17 AM

Regarding the great tie debate: I personally dislike them as highly impractical dangly things (there's a reason nobody in any profession that works with their hands for anything besides pens, mice or keyboards uses one, from traditional surgeons and musicians wearing bow ties to mechanics wearing overalls; a tie is effectively a "white collar office worker" badge of status). If you insist on wearing one, and aren't working in an office, you should either put it in a clip or go full fop with your dress code; anything in between is just annoying.

Of course, I also went to a school at one time that made their own hideous ties mandatory, so I may be biased.

Not just impractical, but also entirely useless. Other clothing, and even other fashion accessories like sunglasses, protects part of your body, or failing that perhaps provides warmth or space for a pocket, but a necktie does nothing - absolutely nothing.

Chen

2017-05-23, 12:21 PM

Not just impractical, but also entirely useless. Other clothing, and even other fashion accessories like sunglasses, protects part of your body, or failing that perhaps provides warmth or space for a pocket, but a necktie does nothing - absolutely nothing.

I'd consider it the equivalent to jewelry.

Delicious Taffy

2017-05-23, 12:30 PM

I'd consider it the equivalent to jewelry.

Most jewelry doesn't take up nearly as much space as your average tie, though. Maybe some of the more gaudy necklaces out there, but there aren't many people wearing those for most of their week. Also, you can just take off a necklace and put it in a bag or pocket, if it's grown uncomfortable. Most situations that encourage wearing a tie don't provide that option.

Chen

2017-05-23, 01:31 PM

Most jewelry doesn't take up nearly as much space as your average tie, though. Maybe some of the more gaudy necklaces out there, but there aren't many people wearing those for most of their week. Also, you can just take off a necklace and put it in a bag or pocket, if it's grown uncomfortable. Most situations that encourage wearing a tie don't provide that option.

My comment was with respect to the comment of them being "entirely useless". They're useless in the same way wearing jewelry is.

Aedilred

2017-05-23, 04:46 PM

Ties are entirely cosmetic, it's true.

Still, I think the fuss people make about them cuts both ways. In some situations wearing a tie can be dangerous (although I believe that in such situations people wearing ties generally tuck them in, or wear a clip-on tie to avoid the problems of getting caught). But if your job means that a tie presents no practical obstacle to performing one's job or personal danger, it's up to you whether you wear one*. But the way people react to your not wearing one, that's also on you.

To put it another way, in my opinion at least you don't get to not wear a tie in a situation where ties are expected and then bitch that people are looking down on you for not wearing a tie. Either suck it up and conform, or be prepared to face the consequences of your nonconformism.

*excepting in some very formal situations, like courtrooms.

Liquor Box

2017-05-23, 05:09 PM

To put it another way, in my opinion at least you don't get to not wear a tie in a situation where ties are expected and then bitch that people are looking down on you for not wearing a tie. Either suck it up and conform, or be prepared to face the consequences of your nonconformism.

This pretty much sums up my response to the entire clothes/haircut debate in this thread.

veti

2017-05-24, 08:12 PM

Then there's the matter of how you still have something around your neck. I might just be picky about that (I do dislike an unusually high number of fabric textures), but it's obnoxious and highly noticeable at the best of time and a downright hindrance to breathing at the worst times.

If your tie feels too tight, then it's too tight. And that's not the fault of the tie itself, it's actually your shirt collar that's at fault, because the tie shouldn't be any tighter than that.

Appropriate steps are:
Unbutton the top of your shirt. This will enable you to swallow your pride.
Buy a shirt with a slightly larger collar size. When fully buttoned up, it should not feel uncomfortable. If it does, then it's still not the right size.
Wear the tie sufficiently tight that it covers the top button of your shirt. But no tighter, because that's just silly.

I'm a bit doubtful of the idea that you'd be able to get away with wearing an actually expressive tie in any situation where the tie is mandatory.

Well, obviously to some extent that depends on your idea of "actually expressive". If it involves a giant erect... member, or obscene gestures, then yeah, it might not be so simple. But I've got away with wearing ties with everything from handpainted abstract art designs (which I for one thought beautiful) to printed animated characters (Wallace & Gromit) on them, in pretty formal settings.

Bohandas

2017-05-25, 07:38 PM

Xyril

2017-05-25, 07:57 PM

2D8HP

2017-05-25, 08:17 PM

Also, why are people still using real ties? One would think that clip-ons or some derivative thereof would have supplanted them by now...

The metal clip against your skin is unpleasant.

I have a longer post in mind about how so much of dress is based on signaling tribal/class affiliation, but for this post I'll just repat that for me men's so-called "formel" wear is more comfortable than most "casual" clothes.

Lighter and natural materials that feel better against the skin, more sizes, what's not to like?

"Casual" clothes are made of plastic that they put holes in (those stupid hateful football jersey's"), and knee shorts?

And "Polo" shirts are horrible to wear!
Why do I want a hot thick layer on my torso, but leave my arms bare so they can be sunburned?

The Bedouin don't go all "John Carter", what's with the cut off polyester crap?!

When I wear thick denim or leather work clothes I know it's because it's more durable, and I'm less likely to get burned when I'm welding, but " "leisure clothes"?
Why are we coerced into wearing that crap!.

Except that classmates and co-workers give me grief, I'd rather wear long sleeve dress shirts and full pants.

I hate all the pro "casual" peer pressure.

And I don't buy "You look like a banker".

I've seen bankers, and they wear those horrible polo shirts!

Women on the other hand are a different story. While the lady lawyers at my job-site now wear trousers as often as dresses (unlike in years past), they still wear shoes that look like torture devices for court.

Men's dress shoes are less comfortable than say sandals, but women's? They just look much more painful.

Why do they still submit to that?

Delicious Taffy

2017-05-25, 09:40 PM

And "Polo" shirts are horrible to wear!
Why do I want a hot thick layer on my torso, but leave my arms bare so they can be sunburned?

Polo shirts are the worst. They make me look like a friggin' hillbilly, and they're horribly uncomfortable. If you can point me to a polo that doesn't feel like dry gauze, I'll... Well, I still won't wear it, due to the aforementioned bumpkin-like appearance.

Knaight

2017-05-25, 11:44 PM

I have a longer post in mind about how so much of dress is based on signaling tribal/class affiliation, but for this post I'll just repat that for me men's so-called "formel" wear is more comfortable than most "casual" clothes.

Lighter and natural materials that feel better against the skin, more sizes, what's not to like?

"Casual" clothes are made of plastic that they put holes in (those stupid hateful football jersey's"), and knee shorts?

Slacks and khakis are both casual pants, if you don't like denim (and you're not the only one, it hangs out on my hated fabric list right by burlap, corduroy, and velvet, and unlike those three it shows up in normal clothing often) they're hardly formal wear. Football jerseys and knee shorts are hardly the full extent of men's casual clothes; there's a lot of variety there that gets winnowed down dramatically as stuff gets more formal.

factotum

2017-05-26, 01:45 AM

"Casual" clothes are made of plastic that they put holes in (those stupid hateful football jersey's"), and knee shorts?

And "Polo" shirts are horrible to wear!

Casual clothes can be made from cotton just as much as polyester--I make it a habit of only buying pure cotton outfits. As for polo shirts, you can actually get long-sleeved versions of them; also, if I'm wearing a regular shirt and it's a hot day I'll roll the sleeves up anyway, because I find it cooler that way. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Aedilred

2017-05-26, 04:52 AM

Not to mention the safety factor--much like a cape, a real tie is a fashionable death trap. Better to use something easily detachable, it could save your life.*

*Source: The Incredibles

In jobs where this is likely to be a factor (e.g. security guarding) any ties worn are generally clip-on for that reason.

As to why clip-on ties haven't supplanted normal ties completely, same reasons that velcro hasn't entirely replaced buttons, shoelaces and zips.

Jotunheim

2017-05-26, 07:10 AM

Why people care so much about appearance?

I really hoped this would improve as I grew older but... Nope not a change, still feels like high school.

I have a co-worker who is extremely vain and people for some reason really love him for that.

He is a fitness freak who is always bragging about going to the gym and lifting a certain amount of weights, and people actually fall for it.

Any humors thing he says is treated as pure gold comedy by my peers.

Why does anything humors you say sounds funny when you are hot?

People said that the future would belong to the nerdy and tech-savvy.

People lied to me. :smallannoyed:

...Yeah, no. Let's break this down. Truth-time.

The world doesn't owe you jack, and you don't get to hold it against other people that they take care of themselves.

The fact that you feel that you have the right to refer to -anyone- as a "freak" for what they happen to do with their free time speaks volumes about entitlement. Working out is good for you. The end. Good on your co-worker for doing that, and good on him for gettng some social capital from the time he's put in.

You're not owed anything. You have the inherent worth that all humans have, and everything else is what you make of it, and what you have to offer to people, and, honestly, if that's being pissy that the world isn't catering specifically to your particular brand of entited manbaby, it's not surprising that it isn't working out for you.

Yes, looks matter. They're a form of capital. Some people have easier access to them than others, but if someone told you that you'd be growing up into a world where you wouldn't have to try, I'm very sorry, but you were lied to.

Aliquid

2017-05-26, 11:21 AM

Also, why are people still using real ties? One would think that clip-ons or some derivative thereof would have supplanted them by now. Given that they are purely ornamental it follows that the part hidden by the collar can be safely dispensed with.And THIS mindset is exactly why geeks rarely dress fashionably. We think of everything in a practical way. Fashion isn't about what is practical or functional.

Think of pocket protectors. In the days that pens leaked, these were highly practical. You were labeled a geek if you wore one (or whatever the term was in those days). "Fanny packs", clipping your cell phone to your belt... back in the 50's wearing glasses was geeky to the point that many youth would rather be half blind than wear them (contacts didn't exist yet)

2D8HP

2017-05-26, 11:38 AM

And THIS mindset is exactly why geeks rarely dress fashionably. We think of everything in a practical way. Fashion isn't about what is practical or functional....

In the 1970's, you'd get labelled a "nerd", if you were seen using both armstraps of your backpack at school, and I often had seemingly well meaning people tell me this.

"But that's too much weight on one side", I'd complain, without understanding that was precisely the point!

You only used one strap to show:

You weren't carrying much.

You didn't care about losing any of your schoolbooks..

You're too lazy to put the other arm through ("It's cas man")

Otherwise, you'd be "Harshing the mellow".

Bohandas

2017-05-27, 09:06 AM

Yes, looks matter. They're a form of capital.

And like money and gold their value is a shared illusion

Aedilred

2017-05-27, 11:46 AM

And like money and gold their value is a shared illusion

I think we've explained why that's not entirely true. Good looks tend to reflect better health, which is pretty much inarguably a positive quality. That doesn't mean that everyone who is healthy is attractive, but most people who are attractive are at least reasonably healthy.

As for presentability and other aspects of appearance that can be controlled (e.g. hygiene) then they reflect a level of giving a toss about your fellow man, which is also a positive quality.

On a purely superficial level, sexual attraction might may be somewhat arbitrary but it's nevertheless a biological instinct, rather than a social illusion we've all agreed to collude in.

The train doesn't stop until it reaches its destination, whether you want to get off or not. I think that some people in this thread (and geekdom and indeed the world more generally) could do with remembering that. Hey look! There's even a relevant OOTS strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html)!

An Enemy Spy

2017-05-27, 06:38 PM

They probably don't like you because you think of them as superficial idiots being suckered in by a vain fitness freak with no substance. A good thing to keep in mind is that if you think everyone else is a jerk, then maybe the real jerk is you.

The thing about people is that they are never(or at least mostly, I don't have a window into every mind on Earth to verify) two dimensional. Every single person is an entire world of their own and one you'll never truly understand even if you know that person well. When you see this guy, you see a vapid and shallow person because what, he enjoys things you've decided are beneath your level of intellect? Well guess what, this guy also has an opinion of you. I wonder what he sees when he looks at you?

Bohandas

2017-05-28, 12:53 PM

On a purely superficial level, sexual attraction might may be somewhat arbitrary but it's nevertheless a biological instinct, rather than a social illusion we've all agreed to collude in.

Whether it's natural or not doesn't make its value any more or less real. It's applicable to one area (and even there the specifics aren't inherent; they are the result of many evolutionary and societal coincidences), but outside of that area it has no legitimate applicability at all.

Furthermore, if sexual attraction is where it's meaning lies, then it ought not to be tolerated in any place where it wouldn't be appropriate to be picking up chicks (or guys or whatever).

As to why clip-on ties haven't supplanted normal ties completely, same reasons that velcro hasn't entirely replaced buttons, shoelaces and zips.

They wear out faster and are harder to replace when they do?

In seriousness though, in the case of ties it can't even be simple narcissism because unless you turn your collar up nobody is going to see that there isn't more tie extending under it unless they're really actively looking for clip-on ties and are all up in your business really close

I have a longer post in mind about how so much of dress is based on signaling tribal/class affiliation, but for this post I'll just repat that for me men's so-called "formel" wear is more comfortable than most "casual" clothes.

I'll agree that I too have encountered comfortable formal wear, but generally that was all bespoke stuff which carried it's own special indirect discomfort in that I had to be extra super cautious not to tear it or get it dirty or anything like that because it's super expensive and also difficult to wash

I think we've explained why that's not entirely true. Good looks tend to reflect better health, which is pretty much inarguably a positive quality. That doesn't mean that everyone who is healthy is attractive, but most people who are attractive are at least reasonably healthy.

Or at least free of the common ailmemts of the day. In ancient times when most people were malnourished plebs and peasants it was attractive to be fat. Then first world civilization happened and everyone got dangerously obese and it became fashionable to be anorexic. And while neither of those are really super in anymore they 're both health related attractiveness standards that weren't really super healthy

Aedilred

2017-05-28, 06:38 PM

I think the "in ye olden days people thought it was attractive to be fat lol how dumb were they" thing is overstated. I'm not aware of a time in history when it's been considered attractive for men to be overweight. For men to be big was good, but that's because that was equated with strength. When larger men went to seed and became overweight, contemporaries noted it with disapproval. Even during the later Georgian era, which was pretty much "peak decadence" for Western upper-class society (until perhaps right now), public figures were roundly mocked for being fat (George who became IV being the most obvious example).

As for women, it was important to look well-fed, and having a full figure (i.e. large bosoms and wide hips) was considered attractive (in real life, as opposed to fashion shows, it generally still is*). But, again, that whole period (generally the early modern era) when people like to claim "fat was attractive" was also a period when women were strapped into corsets to vanish their waists to nothing, even when pregnant. I was in the National Portrait Gallery a couple of weeks ago and all the women are painted with narrow waists, and often clothes which exaggerate the narrowness of their waistline.

Here's Nell Gwyn (with her clothes on, but uncorseted), sex symbol of the Restoration era:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSKpqeszcZhMLbYeIwHyovteYJWz5Aoz 0ZrzOw2SS3_5L0r_Cz1

Going back further, medieval depictions generally show women as pretty slender, unless they are supposed to be "matronly". Here's Joanna of Sicily, considered one of the most beautiful queens of the age:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Joan_I_of_Naples_%28head%29.jpg

What a heffalump! This was still in an era of strongly idealised portraiture, so it may not bear any resemblance to what she actually looked like. But that's what an attractive woman was supposed to look like - a figure that is in no way overweight and would still match our current standards of beauty.

Here's Theodora from about 800 years earlier, at the other end of the Middle Ages:
http://www.nybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/brown_1-111915.jpg
The cloak doesn't help judge her figure, but the narrow face suggests that she's not noticeably fat at least.

And back into antiquity the story is much the same. Here's the Venus de Milo (censored for fear that the sight of bimillenniary stone bosoms will cause uncontrollable excesses of ardour in the forum readership):
http://oi303.photobucket.com/albums/nn147/B4D1UCK/VenusdeMiloCensored_zps110ef343.jpg
She may not be Kate Moss, but nobody could call her "fat". What's interesting about classical depictions of women tends not to be that they're fatter than their modern model counterparts but that their figures aren't very feminine: it seems the ideal for feminine beauty was to look like a man with breasts, if anything. And depictions of men from the period almost invariably show them as lean and fit-looking.

I've never specifically seen this idea debunked, but I have to wonder if it's one of those popular-history "facts" that was invented at some point in the Whig history era and has been taken as read ever since, like that prior to Columbus everyone thought the world was flat, or that full plate armour was too heavy to move about in.

*Wide hips are less fashionable than they were, but large bosoms are still in. Both are good signals of fertility and ability to bear children.

Furthermore, if sexual attraction is where it's meaning lies, then it ought not to be tolerated in any place where it wouldn't be appropriate to be picking up chicks (or guys or whatever).
Yeah, good luck with that...

veti

2017-05-28, 10:34 PM

Casual clothes can be made from cotton just as much as polyester--I make it a habit of only buying pure cotton outfits. As for polo shirts, you can actually get long-sleeved versions of them; also, if I'm wearing a regular shirt and it's a hot day I'll roll the sleeves up anyway, because I find it cooler that way. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

This, exactly. Material is independent of style. You can get nylon or polyester shirts - or you can wear natural fibres, in just about any shape, including polo shirts. I have cotton polo shirts and rugby shirts, as well as formal shirts.

(Wool, linen and silk are also acceptable, although linen not so good for shirts.)

I've also got some t-shirts (mostly "gifted" by my employer) made of artificial fabrics, including state-of-the-art "breathable" sportswear stuff. They are, without exception, horrible to wear. The only time I use them is when everything else in my wardrobe is dirty.

Liquor Box

2017-05-28, 11:59 PM

I think the "in ye olden days people thought it was attractive to be fat lol how dumb were they" thing is overstated. I'm not aware of a time in history when it's been considered attractive for men to be overweight. For men to be big was good, but that's because that was equated with strength. When larger men went to seed and became overweight, contemporaries noted it with disapproval. Even during the later Georgian era, which was pretty much "peak decadence" for Western upper-class society (until perhaps right now), public figures were roundly mocked for being fat (George who became IV being the most obvious example).

As for women, it was important to look well-fed, and having a full figure (i.e. large bosoms and wide hips) was considered attractive (in real life, as opposed to fashion shows, it generally still is*). But, again, that whole period (generally the early modern era) when people like to claim "fat was attractive" was also a period when women were strapped into corsets to vanish their waists to nothing, even when pregnant. I was in the National Portrait Gallery a couple of weeks ago and all the women are painted with narrow waists, and often clothes which exaggerate the narrowness of their waistline.

Here's Nell Gwyn (with her clothes on, but uncorseted), sex symbol of the Restoration era:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSKpqeszcZhMLbYeIwHyovteYJWz5Aoz 0ZrzOw2SS3_5L0r_Cz1

Going back further, medieval depictions generally show women as pretty slender, unless they are supposed to be "matronly". Here's Joanna of Sicily, considered one of the most beautiful queens of the age:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Joan_I_of_Naples_%28head%29.jpg

What a heffalump! This was still in an era of strongly idealised portraiture, so it may not bear any resemblance to what she actually looked like. But that's what an attractive woman was supposed to look like - a figure that is in no way overweight and would still match our current standards of beauty.

Here's Theodora from about 800 years earlier, at the other end of the Middle Ages:
http://www.nybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/brown_1-111915.jpg
The cloak doesn't help judge her figure, but the narrow face suggests that she's not noticeably fat at least.

And back into antiquity the story is much the same. Here's the Venus de Milo (censored for fear that the sight of bimillenniary stone bosoms will cause uncontrollable excesses of ardour in the forum readership):
http://oi303.photobucket.com/albums/nn147/B4D1UCK/VenusdeMiloCensored_zps110ef343.jpg
She may not be Kate Moss, but nobody could call her "fat". What's interesting about classical depictions of women tends not to be that they're fatter than their modern model counterparts but that their figures aren't very feminine: it seems the ideal for feminine beauty was to look like a man with breasts, if anything. And depictions of men from the period almost invariably show them as lean and fit-looking.

I've never specifically seen this idea debunked, but I have to wonder if it's one of those popular-history "facts" that was invented at some point in the Whig history era and has been taken as read ever since, like that prior to Columbus everyone thought the world was flat, or that full plate armour was too heavy to move about in.

*Wide hips are less fashionable than they were, but large bosoms are still in. Both are good signals of fertility and ability to bear children.

Yeah, good luck with that...

I think you may have had to have gone back even further:

http://www.uvm.edu/~iwd/images08/venuswillindorflarge.jpg

factotum

2017-05-29, 12:43 AM

Isn't a lot of the "fat = attractive in the past" stuff based on the artwork of Reubens, who *did* like to paint ladies of a slightly larger size? It's entirely probable that was his own personal preference rather than a general trend of his time, of course.

Xyril

2017-05-29, 03:34 AM

Isn't a lot of the "fat = attractive in the past" stuff based on the artwork of Reubens, who *did* like to paint ladies of a slightly larger size?

No. Similarly, our belief that soccer is a popular world-wide sport isn't solely based on the fact that this famous "Pele" guy was really into it.

It's entirely probable that was his own personal preference rather than a general trend of his time, of course.

It's entirely probably only if you assume that your first statement is true and ignore the existence of all other contemporaneous evidence.

Aedilred

2017-05-29, 05:27 AM

No. Similarly, our belief that soccer is a popular world-wide sport isn't solely based on the fact that this famous "Pele" guy was really into it.

It's entirely probably only if you assume that your first statement is true and ignore the existence of all other contemporaneous evidence.

Care to elaborate, then?

I'd be interested to know what the evidence actually is. (Genuinely; that's not sarcasm).

factotum

2017-05-29, 06:32 AM

Red Fel

2017-05-29, 01:02 PM

Yeah, I'm a bit unclear myself--are you saying that Reubens didn't paint larger women, or that he did and that *isn't* the reason people often believe that larger women were considered more beautiful in the past? Or is there some other option I'm missing?

I think Xyril is saying that the fact that one person did something (e.g. Reubens painted large women, Pele played football/soccer) does not actually demonstrate that said something was any kind of cultural trend or phenomenon, whether it was or wasn't. If one man in the mountains of Tibet in the 1300s became totally fanatical about playing the ukulele, that does not mean that the ukulele was necessarily a thing in the 1300s. This is true irrespective of whether the ukulele actually was a thing or not; the ukulele's status as a thing is not causally dependent upon the practices of a lone mountain hermit.

Strigon

2017-05-29, 01:36 PM

Aedilred

2017-05-29, 02:29 PM

I think Xyril is saying that the fact that one person did something (e.g. Reubens painted large women, Pele played football/soccer) does not actually demonstrate that said something was any kind of cultural trend or phenomenon, whether it was or wasn't. If one man in the mountains of Tibet in the 1300s became totally fanatical about playing the ukulele, that does not mean that the ukulele was necessarily a thing in the 1300s. This is true irrespective of whether the ukulele actually was a thing or not; the ukulele's status as a thing is not causally dependent upon the practices of a lone mountain hermit.

His statement seems to imply pretty heavily that there's actually a lot of evidence for this belief which we haven't taken into account. I'm just curious to know what it is.

factotum

2017-05-29, 04:26 PM

I think Xyril is saying that the fact that one person did something (e.g. Reubens painted large women, Pele played football/soccer) does not actually demonstrate that said something was any kind of cultural trend or phenomenon, whether it was or wasn't.

Um, well, isn't that exactly what I said? I was saying that the impression *today* of large women being attractive back in the day comes from Reubens portraits, not that there was any sort of cultural trend at the time to that effect--in fact, I even said that maybe Reubens just liked the larger lady.

Scarlet Knight

2017-05-29, 05:44 PM

I think the "in ye olden days people thought it was attractive to be fat lol how dumb were they" thing is overstated...

I've never specifically seen this idea debunked, but I have to wonder if it's one of those popular-history "facts" that was invented at some point in the Whig history era and has been taken as read ever since, like that prior to Columbus everyone thought the world was flat, or that full plate armour was too heavy to move about in.
...

Thanks for these pictures, Aedilred...the Venus di Milo made me think "Yeah, who besides Reubens painted/ sculpted big women"?

At first I thought Botticelli, but his women, especially his Birth of Venus were pretty thin. So I thought Titian, and while his women aren't thin they'd still be the hottest women at the office.

I was suprised that I found Michaelangelo to have many realistically round women, especially in the Sistine Chapel. There, his thin women (Dawn and Night) are still thick, and his normal women often have belly rolls (eg Eve) . I think this was on purpose to be realistic since the Blessed Mother in La Pieta was thin as an ideal.

In the 1970's, ...

You only used one strap to show:

You weren't carrying much.

You didn't care about losing any of your schoolbooks..

You're too lazy to put the other arm through ("It's cas man")

Otherwise, you'd be "Harshing the mellow".

You forgot "to show that you were strong enough that you didn't care about the weight".

thamolas

2017-05-29, 06:26 PM

And THIS mindset is exactly why geeks rarely dress fashionably. We think of everything in a practical way. Fashion isn't about what is practical or functional.

Looking like a slob is highly impractical.

Red Fel

2017-05-30, 10:24 AM

And THIS mindset is exactly why geeks rarely dress fashionably. We think of everything in a practical way. Fashion isn't about what is practical or functional.

Somebody should have told this to Coco Chanel. I mean, she tried to break into fashion by making clothing that was practical and comfortable, like her tweed suit and little black dress. This complete idiot actually had the nerve to say that "Luxury must be comfortable," which is clearly absurd. Somebody should have told her that she would never get far with fashion ideas designed around practicality, ease of movement, and comfort.

I suppose that's why she never made it in the fashion industry.

Aliquid

2017-05-30, 10:58 AM

Somebody should have told this to Coco Chanel. I mean, she tried to break into fashion by making clothing that was practical and comfortable, like her tweed suit and little black dress. This complete idiot actually had the nerve to say that "Luxury must be comfortable," which is clearly absurd. Somebody should have told her that she would never get far with fashion ideas designed around practicality, ease of movement, and comfort.

I suppose that's why she never made it in the fashion industry.There is a big difference between a charismatic costume designer/actress and your average geek on the street.

If we decide to wear socks with sandals because it is comfortable, we will be looked down upon. If Ben Affleck decided to wear socks with sandals... it might become a fashionable thing to do.

Mikemical

2017-05-30, 11:01 AM

I think you may have had to have gone back even further:
http://www.uvm.edu/~iwd/images08/venuswillindorflarge.jpg

Here's the thing. Fertility idols such as the one you posted are meant to represent pregnant women. Not morbidly obese women. And there is a reason for that. You want me to go fetch the story about the obese woman who had a miscarriage and didn't notice she was pregnant because she was "big boned"? Being fat isn't healthy, and while there are people out there who would find chub attractive, there's also people who find the idea of contracting AIDS/HIV hot.

And THIS mindset is exactly why geeks rarely dress fashionably. We think of everything in a practical way. Fashion isn't about what is practical or functional.

It also takes quite some effort to pull off these looks:
https://media0ch-a.akamaihd.net/51/98/b3173e45d67b862e15c6260bfa20cad0.jpghttps://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/parliament-of-pol/images/a/a4/Tumblr_nns7syi7fh1rg3vrmo1_400.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/185?cb=20150621201029

The simple truth is, some people have a natural sense for style, know how to match their clothes so they're both fashionable and comfortable. Some people don't. I peronally cheat and just follow a simple couple color rules:

-Your belt and your shoes should always be of matching colors. If not wearing a belt, your shoes should be a matching color with your shirt.

-Your pants shouldn't be brighter than your shirt. Ever.

-Hoodies/sweaters are excempt of any color matching rules because being fashionable < being cold.

Shamash

2017-05-30, 11:55 AM

Here's the thing. Fertility idols such as the one you posted are meant to represent pregnant women.

Nope, they are supposed to have exaggerated sexual characteristic and bodies.http://apps.sumerianalien.com/Gallery/upload/s/u/sumerianalien.com/22724/original/b56c43f73de63925c6f7c2792088a5f8.jpg
http://www.livius.org/site/assets/files/2188/thumbnail_rome_ephesian_artemis_naples2.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Fontana_di_Diana_Efesina-Tivoli%2C_Villa_d%27Este.jpg/800px-Fontana_di_Diana_Efesina-Tivoli%2C_Villa_d%27Este.jpg
https://i1.wp.com/priapusshot.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Priapus.jpeg
https://fthmb.tqn.com/cLkYqLKs0me-OfFQQiDfjoYxXtk=/768x0/filters:no_upscale()/about/painting-from-the-ruins-of-herculanum-536032340-57dd80145f9b58651609dd41.jpg
http://images.comunidades.net/mar/mariapadilhadasalmas/exu1.jpg
https://www.goddessgift.net/gods-heroes-images/phallic-king-SS-PK.jpg
https://tomvanderwell.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/egyptian-phallic-statue.jpg
http://www.kreps.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/satyrs.jpg

Another exemple: LINK (http://humoncomics.com/art/fertility-deities.png) Also not safe for work.

Red Fel

2017-05-30, 12:49 PM

There is a big difference between a charismatic costume designer/actress and your average geek on the street.

If we decide to wear socks with sandals because it is comfortable, we will be looked down upon. If Ben Affleck decided to wear socks with sandals... it might become a fashionable thing to do.

... Do you know who Coco Chanel was?

She was an attractive orphan girl who entertained a failed career at stage performance, became the mistress of a textile heir, and ultimately opened a hat store. She was pretty, yes, and smart, but I wouldn't call her a "charismatic costume designer/actress," at least not until she became an established couturière in her 30s. Costume design came after she was an established name, not before.

In any event, this argument gets away from the earlier point. You said that geeks rarely dress fashionably, because we care more about practicality and comfort. My counter-argument is that Chanel became a famous fashion designer in part because of her emphasis on practicality and comfort. Saying, "Yes, but it's different when she does it" is a facetious argument. The fact that geeks care more about practicality and comfort than about style or appearance - and tell that to any hardcore cosplayer if you want to get a laugh - does not mean that geeks must not be fashionable. Chanel's impact on the industry shows that it is possible to do both, comfort and style, practicality and appearance, if you care about it.

It's not that geeks aren't fashionable because they emphasize other things. It's that the geeks you describe aren't fashionable because they choose not to be.

Me? I'm snappy as literal hell. Lawful Evil has to represent, after all.

Aliquid

2017-05-30, 06:40 PM

... Do you know who Coco Chanel was?To be honest, it doesn't really matter. Because...

"Yes, but it's different when she does it"Which is not a facetious argument. It is the ONLY argument when it comes to being fashionable. There are only two ways to dress and be considered fashionable.

(1) to wear clothes that are already established as being fashionable
(2) to be someone charismatic that can get away with starting a new fashion trend

And even (1) can go wrong if you have low charisma.

and tell that to any hardcore cosplayer if you want to get a laughCosplayers can put a huge amount of consideration into style and detail and they can look amazing. They are still not taken seriously by the general population, and they are laughed at by people who are "trendy" or "fashionable".

I was at a corporate party once where it was a "masked ball" theme. There was a impromptu contest at the end for who had the best mask, judged by applause. There were a handful of cosplay type geeks that worked for the corporation, and they had on full out traditional masked ball outfits/masks. They looked awesome. They lost the 'popularity contest' though. They lost it to some jock in a generic hockey mask.

I'm not saying this matters though. There is a big enough (and growing) sub-culture of geeks that think that cosplayers DO look cool. And as a group they can socially band together to laugh at the smug "high fashion" folk in return.

It's not that geeks aren't fashionable because they emphasize other things. It's that the geeks you describe aren't fashionable because they choose not to be.I wouldn't say that. I would say that most geeks are entirely oblivious to the social aspects of fashion. They wear the fanny-pack and the pocket protector because that's the practical thing to wear. Fashion doesn't even cross their mind. They wear the OOTS t-shirt because they find OOTS amusing (and likely so do their friends)... fashion isn't a factor.

Good for them. Wear what makes you happy/comfortable.

But if you are going for a job interview. Or have a job and want to be treated well... you might have to start considering what other people consider to be appropriate for the "dress to impress" mindset.

I've always dressed appropriately for a job one level higher than my own. It has done me well so far.

Red Fel

2017-05-30, 07:11 PM

To be honest, it doesn't really matter. Because...
Which is not a facetious argument. It is the ONLY argument when it comes to being fashionable. There are only two ways to dress and be considered fashionable.

(1) to wear clothes that are already established as being fashionable
(2) to be someone charismatic that can get away with starting a new fashion trend

And even (1) can go wrong if you have low charisma.

Then let's be clear. Coco Chanel was, essentially, a very pretty nobody with some influential paramours who borrowed money to start a hat shop. She then redefined fashion by emphasizing practicality and comfort. Her styles were picked up because of what they were, not because of who she was.

Cosplayers can put a huge amount of consideration into style and detail and they can look amazing. They are still not taken seriously by the general population, and they are laughed at by people who are "trendy" or "fashionable".

Precisely. Cosplayers, generally, are geeky. Yet they see a reason to emphasize style, attractiveness, and aesthetic over comfort - ask anyone who has worn a bodysuit, girdle, or other heavy or crushing garment. They look good, but they sure don't feel good. And your prop wings may be incredibly accurate, but they make going through doorways an absolute pain.

In other words, the argument of "geeks favor practicality and comfort over aesthetics" falls apart when you bring cosplayers into the mix.

I was at a corporate party once where it was a "masked ball" theme. There was a impromptu contest at the end for who had the best mask, judged by applause. There were a handful of cosplay type geeks that worked for the corporation, and they had on full out traditional masked ball outfits/masks. They looked awesome. They lost the 'popularity contest' though. They lost it to some jock in a generic hockey mask.

Not the point.

I'm not saying this matters though. There is a big enough (and growing) sub-culture of geeks that think that cosplayers DO look cool. And as a group they can socially band together to laugh at the smug "high fashion" folk in return.

Also not the point.

I wouldn't say that. I would say that most geeks are entirely oblivious to the social aspects of fashion. They wear the fanny-pack and the pocket protector because that's the practical thing to wear. Fashion doesn't even cross their mind. They wear the OOTS t-shirt because they find OOTS amusing (and likely so do their friends)... fashion isn't a factor.

And I would say that anybody can be oblivious to fashion. Jocks can be oblivious to fashion. Bankers can be oblivious to fashion. Old or young, male or female, rich or poor, otaku or gamer, anybody can.

Likewise, anybody can pay attention to fashion. Geeks are under no obligation to be unfashionable. Geek fashion is its own term ("geek chic" is something I've gagged at hearing), but even the freakiest of the geeky can don a snappy three-piece or slinky dress and rub elbows with the fancies in pantsies if they want to. Nobody says they have to subscribe to your definition of practicality.

Look, when I'm not at work or living it up, I ditch the suit and tie. I dress comfortably. Which for me is a clean, comfortable pair of jeans and - generally - a nice polo shirt. Short sleeves, maybe a pocket, maybe not. Apparently that makes me stand apart from a crowd whose shirts tell me their favorite video games growing up. And I don't disdain that - I have a couple of "Wolfram and Hart: Attorneys at Law" shirts gathering dust in my closet. But I like dressing a bit nicer. It makes me happy. And it annoys me when someone implies that I've somehow lost geek credibility for bothering to pay attention to my appearance outside of the workplace.

Shamash

2017-05-30, 08:01 PM

Why people care so much about appearance?

I really hoped this would improve as I grew older but... Nope not a change, still feels like high school.

I have a co-worker who is extremely vain and people for some reason really love him for that.

He is a fitness freak who is always bragging about going to the gym and lifting a certain amount of weights, and people actually fall for it.

Any humors thing he says is treated as pure gold comedy by my peers.

Why does anything humors you say sounds funny when you are hot?

People said that the future would belong to the nerdy and tech-savvy.

People lied to me. :smallannoyed:

I think your mistake is believing that having muscles is something easy and unimpressive.

But it takes a lot of hard work to build a good physique, dedication and it's something that you need to be constantly doing, otherwise you lose it.

So it's something quite impressive. Maybe you think getting to the top of the Everest is not something smart or wise but you can’t deny it’s quite an accomplishment, same goes with muscles, you may not like it but everyone agrees it is quite awesome.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSsbqEqVgPXtXhTj9EFF8PgwpvL-_OUP2A7SeXFQyvjVEIvid8Y6A
https://behapy.s3.amazonaws.com/06/60/490660/default.jpg

2D8HP

2017-05-30, 08:38 PM

...I was at a corporate party once where it was a "masked ball" theme. There was a impromptu contest at the end for who had the best mask, judged by applause. There were a handful of cosplay type geeks that worked for the corporation, and they had on full out traditional masked ball outfits/masks. They looked awesome. They lost the 'popularity contest' though. They lost it to some jock in a generic hockey mask.

I'm not saying this matters though. There is a big enough (and growing) sub-culture of geeks that think that cosplayers DO look cool. And as a group they can socially band together to laugh at the smug "high fashion" folk in return....

I suspect "cos-players", and "high fashion folk" are more alike than that, both are "out of uniform".

"Corporate" uniform seems to be "polo shirts" and khaki's on men, suits if in court.

Women's work uniforms seem to be more varied, but close to mens suits, but tighter and with "pumps" for shoes for court (compared to five years ago, women seem to now wear trousers more often than skirts for court, but they still were skirts and dresses, unlike men who dress the same as five, ten, 20 etc. years ago).

Women in "sales" largely wear polo shirts as well, but they rarely wear the light colors that men do.

I should give the caveat that I'm a blue-collar worker in my very late 40's, so my observations are skewed, and the further caveat that I see more people "out-of-uniform" at supermarkets in San Francisco, than elsewhere, so I assume there's less hostility in The City, but "uniforms" are more common than not.

If I wear more "formel" clothes (and no polo shirts don't qualify, they're "business"), or "bohemian" (like a pop star or cosplayer) than I get more positive reactions from women, but most men are hostile, sometimes dangerously so.

"Business/sales' uniforms are obvious. Short sleeve Polo shirts and long pants, on both men and women. Office workers have s little bit more variety, in that dress shirts and sweaters are options, as well as the Polo's.
If you're slim, and it's a dark logo-free shirt, you can actual not look bad in one, but bare arms, and thick material? I have to be paid to wear one.

Off work a guy is really only allowed to mix four "styles" if he doesn't want hostility from men, "I just came from work" polo shirts (but not suits, wearing a tie when you're not in court or a police detective is asking for trouble!), "I just came from work" denim. "I'm cos-playing as a basketball or football player", "I'm cos-playing as a cast member of Sons of Anarchy".

None of those "uniforms" are new "trendy fashion", they've all been enforced (literally!) for decades.

Women will treat you nice if you're out of uniform, perhaps because they're amazed to see a man who doesn't dress like most, or maybe they just pity you because they know how men will treat you.

Men will react with hostility..

Not all guys are dangerous jerks, not even the majority, but enough are that they're dangerous.

If you value your skin, stay in uniform

Aliquid

2017-05-30, 09:17 PM

Then let's be clear. Coco Chanel was, essentially, a very pretty nobody with some influential paramours who borrowed money to start a hat shop. She then redefined fashion by emphasizing practicality and comfort. Her styles were picked up because of what they were, not because of who she was.I still call BS. There were plenty of people before and after her that made comfortable and practical outfits. Hers became "fashionable" and theirs didn't because charismatic and influential people said "being practical and comfortable is fashionable", but there was an unspoken addendum of "but not if your comfortable clothes come from the five and dime store"

Precisely. Cosplayers, generally, are geeky. Yet they see a reason to emphasize style, attractiveness, and aesthetic over comfort - ask anyone who has worn a bodysuit, girdle, or other heavy or crushing garment. They look good, but they sure don't feel good. And your prop wings may be incredibly accurate, but they make going through doorways an absolute pain.

In other words, the argument of "geeks favor practicality and comfort over aesthetics" falls apart when you bring cosplayers into the mix.I didn't say all geeks favor practicality and comfort over aesthetics, I said "geeks rarely dress fashionably", note the word rarely.
One of the defining features of being a geek is having a passion for something that isn't mainstream. RPGs, model trains, sci-fi, etc. If that passion happens to be something clothing related such as antique fashion or fantasy fashion... then yes, they will be concerned over style more than comfort.

Not the point.
Also not the point.you were making multiple points, and this is relevant to some of them. Yes it does matter who is wearing it, not just what it is.

And I would say that anybody can be oblivious to fashion. Jocks can be oblivious to fashion. Bankers can be oblivious to fashion. Old or young, male or female, rich or poor, otaku or gamer, anybody can.I won't argue that. I would say that geeks are statistically more likely to be unfashionable than other demographics.

Likewise, anybody can pay attention to fashion. Geeks are under no obligation to be unfashionable. Geek fashion is its own term ("geek chic" is something I've gagged at hearing), but even the freakiest of the geeky can don a snappy three-piece or slinky dress and rub elbows with the fancies in pantsies if they want to. Nobody says they have to subscribe to your definition of practicality.They don't have to, but they do. For most geeks, it is part of their personality. It is what MAKES them a geek in the first place. If someone dresses fashionably, and is competent in most social settings.... then I would argue that they are not a geek in the first place. Because lacking those features are other defining features of a geek. A geek doesn't need to have all of these features, but they certainly need most to qualify.

Look, when I'm not at work or living it up, I ditch the suit and tie. I dress comfortably. Which for me is a clean, comfortable pair of jeans and - generally - a nice polo shirt. Short sleeves, maybe a pocket, maybe not. Apparently that makes me stand apart from a crowd whose shirts tell me their favorite video games growing up. And I don't disdain that - I have a couple of "Wolfram and Hart: Attorneys at Law" shirts gathering dust in my closet. But I like dressing a bit nicer. It makes me happy. And it annoys me when someone implies that I've somehow lost geek credibility for bothering to pay attention to my appearance outside of the workplace.I wonder how you define geek.

Aedilred

2017-05-30, 10:03 PM

I still call BS. There were plenty of people before and after her that made comfortable and practical outfits. Hers became "fashionable" and theirs didn't because charismatic and influential people said "being practical and comfortable is fashionable", but there was an unspoken addendum of "but not if your comfortable clothes come from the five and dime store".
That's not so much an unspoken addendum as a foundational principle.

They don't have to, but they do. For most geeks, it is part of their personality. It is what MAKES them a geek in the first place. If someone dresses fashionably, and is competent in most social settings.... then I would argue that they are not a geek in the first place. Because lacking those features are other defining features of a geek. A geek doesn't need to have all of these features, but they certainly need most to qualify.

I wonder how you define geek.

Something great about geeks is that despite being the first to complain about how others treat them "unfairly" because of their geekdom, they're also often ridiculous snobs and love acting as gatekeepers to their own social sphere. Dress well? Not a geek. Can't name more than 400 Pokemon? Not a real geek. Pretty girl? Totally not a geek.

There's also a widespread assumption that if they don't care about or aren't interested in something then it doesn't matter and anyone who does care about it at all is an idiot (or a villain). This despite geeks pretty much by definition caring about or having interests in esoteric areas that aren't of widespread interest, often to a much more unhealthy degree than the things they rail about in other people.

I have to say I find geek culture even more hypocritical and unpleasant in those respects than "mainstream" society.

Men will react with hostility..

Not all guys are dangerous jerks, not even the majority, but enough are that they're dangerous.

If you value your skin, stay in uniform
I think this partially depends on location and context. One of the things I like most about London is that I can wear a cravat, or a hat, or lace cuffs, or carry a cane, and nobody will give me a second glance. I probably don't even crack the top ten most outlandishly-dressed people they've seen that day. Obviously some of that wouldn't be appropriate in a workplace, but casually, there's no real pressure to conform to any kind of standard. At worst I might get a couple of jokey remarks or questions from friends, but I get more compliments than any other type of comment. On the other hand I went to a convention in a provincial city (a relatively large one, by British standards), wearing a smoking jacket and a cravat, and the locals looked at me like I'd just arrived from the moon.

I gather there is an effect with regard to race relations - large cities with larger populations of minorities tend to be more tolerant of those minorities than settlements where the populations are smaller: the most racist parts of a population tend to be those who have least contact with people of other races. Which is logical, in a way. I suspect the same holds true for views on "not wearing the uniform": diversity breeds tolerance.

Aliquid

2017-05-30, 10:30 PM

Something great about geeks is that despite being the first to complain about how others treat them "unfairly" because of their geekdom, they're also often ridiculous snobs and love acting as gatekeepers to their own social sphere. Dress well? Not a geek. Can't name more than 400 Pokemon? Not a real geek. Pretty girl? Totally not a geek.

There's also a widespread assumption that if they don't care about or aren't interested in something then it doesn't matter and anyone who does care about it at all is an idiot (or a villain). This despite geeks pretty much by definition caring about or having interests in esoteric areas that aren't of widespread interest, often to a much more unhealthy degree than the things they rail about in other people.

I have to say I find geek culture even more hypocritical and unpleasant in those respects than "mainstream" society.Valid points... and this makes me realize that this line of debate is pointless.

I can't debate the statement "geeks do x" when there isn't a common understanding of what a "geek" is. My definition of "geek" may differ from others, and I'm not going to claim I'm the authority of who is and isn't a geek. Even discussing that subject is a topic for it's own thread (and probably already has been more than once on these boards)

2D8HP

2017-05-31, 12:34 AM

...I think this partially depends on location and context. One of the things I like most about London is that I can wear...

...I suspect the same holds true for views on "not wearing the uniform": diversity breeds tolerance.

I think that's a very good point.

I did write:

...I should give the caveat that I'm a blue-collar worker in my very late 40's, so my observations are skewed, and the further caveat that I see more people "out-of-uniform" at supermarkets in San Francisco, than elsewhere, so I assume there's less hostility in The City, but "uniforms" are more common than not....

London is a much bigger City than San Francisco.

While SF is very tolerant to those "out of uniform" (in some ways it's just specifying different uniforms, but it's still less restrictive), it's still a small area.

When I was a youth, some young men (like myself) would come to "The City" to see bands play, others would come with accomplishes to beat guys up who looked "off". I wore a "Greek fisherman's cap" back then, which was enough to "earn" me a beating. Ironically the uniform of the thugs then is not too different from what "metropolitan hipster" guys wear now.

When I worked as an apprentice in San Jose 10 to 15 years later, I had to bite my tongue when one of the Journeymen told of being a thug as a youth who went with his friends to go "bashing" in San Francisco.

I grew up some in Oakland, but mostly in the "bohemian college town", of Berkeley, and we had different uniforms than the teenagers in the suburbs, and we mostly used "BMW" to get around, that is Bart (our subway), Muni (busses), and walking.

But suburban youths had cars, which they used to go places, and beat up those not in their uniform.

The clothes you described as safe in London, would get approval from guys and girls "in the scene" at a nightclub in "The City". It would also get you beat up by young men enforcing the uniform.

I hope that's not true anymore, but judging by what I've heard during my working life, men still enforce conformity to uniforms.

Women can be cruel as well, but I don't think that they usually enforce dress codes with physical violence.

Red Fel's examples of a black three-piece-suit, and of a red shirt, got me positive attention from women "back-in-the-day" (I never tried both at the same time though!), but eventually staying on good terms with my co-workers (not "looking like a banker"), and just plain fear of physical violence prevents me from dressing "sharp".

The last time I wore a suit was to go to a funeral, and I noted that many more beggars approached me as well.

If you stay in San Francisco, or Berkeley (and London?) it's easier to dress "sharp", or as an individual, but San Jose?

Stay in uniform, the safest is to dress like you're about to play a game of football for the team that's supported in that area.

Yes, if you're not actually playing, you look idiotic, maybe that's the point?

Don't dress for comfort.

Don't dress for style.

Dress to impersonate.

Because "boys will be boys" (young men will be thugs).

Yes I'm bitter.

Red Fel

2017-05-31, 08:48 AM

Valid points... and this makes me realize that this line of debate is pointless.

I can't debate the statement "geeks do x" when there isn't a common understanding of what a "geek" is. My definition of "geek" may differ from others, and I'm not going to claim I'm the authority of who is and isn't a geek. Even discussing that subject is a topic for it's own thread (and probably already has been more than once on these boards)

That's a fair position, actually.

Fact is, I know my definition of geek is broader than most, because I think of it as an open tent - a "geek" is someone who is passionate about a thing. D&D geeks, anime geeks, computer geeks, sports geeks, politics geeks, history geeks, music geeks, theater geeks. I consider someone who knows their favorite footballer's goals, assists, and physical aptitudes as much a geek as someone who can rattle off the stats on their level 20 Wizard; I consider someone who can recite the lyrics of O Fortuna as much a geek as someone who can recite the lyrics of Cruel Angel's Thesis; I consider someone who can rattle for hours about the precise way to make the perfect souffle as much a geek as someone who can insist on the precise type of stitching and fabric necessary to make an accurate cosplay.

So, yeah. I don't consider "no fashion sense" to be a defining aspect of geekdom. I've literally met fashion geeks.

If someone else has a different definition of the term, then perhaps "no fashion sense" is a defining trait under that definition. I couldn't say. I could disagree, but I couldn't say.

Amazon

2017-05-31, 10:28 AM

http://oi192.photobucket.com/albums/z167/Great_WhiteSnark/Geeks_Nerds_Venn.jpg

Aliquid

2017-05-31, 10:38 AM

Fact is, I know my definition of geek is broader than most, because I think of it as an open tent - a "geek" is someone who is passionate about a thing. D&D geeks, anime geeks, computer geeks, sports geeks, politics geeks, history geeks, music geeks, theater geeks. I consider someone who knows their favorite footballer's goals, assists, and physical aptitudes as much a geek as someone who can rattle off the stats on their level 20 Wizard; I consider someone who can recite the lyrics of O Fortuna as much a geek as someone who can recite the lyrics of Cruel Angel's Thesis; I consider someone who can rattle for hours about the precise way to make the perfect souffle as much a geek as someone who can insist on the precise type of stitching and fabric necessary to make an accurate cosplay.My definition of a geek differs. And as I mentioned before, I don't claim I am the authority of who is a geek, but to put my other comments into context, here is how I view a geek:

A geek is passionate, bordering on obsessed with a non-mainstream subject
A geek is socially awkward and finds it difficult to socialize with people who don't also have an interest his/her passion
A geek doesn't follow social conventions (current fashion, current trends, popular TV shows, rooting the local sports team... etc). Note that this may be because they are oblivious to these things, or because they haughtily eschew such things, or something in-between

People who are obsessed with things like sports (and know all the stats), and tabloid trivia are just like geeks, but manage to dodge the label. If you drop them in a random social setting, they can chat around and find someone who has at least a passing interest in that subject. They can "fit in".

Zen

2017-05-31, 10:59 AM

My definition of a geek differs. And as I mentioned before, I don't claim I am the authority of who is a geek, but to put my other comments into context, here is how I view a geek:

A geek is passionate, bordering on obsessed with a non-mainstream subject
A geek is socially awkward and finds it difficult to socialize with people who don't also have an interest his/her passion
A geek doesn't follow social conventions (current fashion, current trends, popular TV shows, rooting the local sports team... etc). Note that this may be because they are oblivious to these things, or because they haughtily eschew such things, or something in-between

People who are obsessed with things like sports (and know all the stats), and tabloid trivia are just like geeks, but manage to dodge the label. If you drop them in a random social setting, they can chat around and find someone who has at least a passing interest in that subject. They can "fit in".

I think geeks don't have to be socially awkward, that's a nerd thing.

Bohandas

2017-05-31, 11:14 AM

[spoiler]I think that's a very good point.

I did write:

London is a much bigger City than San Francisco.

While SF is very tolerant to those "out of uniform" (in some ways it's just specifying different uniforms, but it's still less restrictive), it's still a small area.

When I was a youth, some young men (like myself) would come to "The City" to see bands play, others would come with accomplishes to beat guys up who looked "off". I wore a "Greek fisherman's cap" back then, which was enough to "earn" me a beating. Ironically the uniform of the thugs then is not too different from what "metropolitan hipster" guys wear now.

When I worked as an apprentice in San Jose 10 to 15 years later, I had to bite my tongue when one of the Journeymen told of being a thug as a youth who went with his friends to go "bashing" in San Francisco.

I grew up some in Oakland, but mostly in the "bohemian college town", of Berkeley, and we had different uniforms than the teenagers in the suburbs, and we mostly used "BMW" to get around, that is Bart (our subway), Muni (busses), and walking.

But suburban youths had cars, which they used to go places, and beat up those not in their uniform.

The clothes you described as safe in London, would get approval from guys and girls "in the scene" at a nightclub in "The City". It would also get you beat up by young men enforcing the uniform.

I hope that's not true anymore, but judging by what I've heard during my working life, men still enforce conformity to uniforms.

Women can be cruel as well, but I don't think that they usually enforce dress codes with physical violence.

Red Fel's examples of a black three-piece-suit, and of a red shirt, got me positive attention from women "back-in-the-day" (I never tried both at the same time though!), but eventually staying on good terms with my co-workers (not "looking like a banker"), and just plain fear of physical violence prevents me from dressing "sharp".

The last time I wore a suit was to go to a funeral, and I noted that many more beggars approached me as well.

If you stay in San Francisco, or Berkeley (and London?) it's easier to dress "sharp", or as an individual, but San Jose?

Stay in uniform, the safest is to dress like you're about to play a game of football for the team that's supported in that area.

Yes, if you're not actually playing, you look idiotic, maybe that's the point?

Don't dress for comfort.

Don't dress for style.

Dress to impersonate.

Because "boys will be boys" (young men will be thugs).

Yes I'm bitter.[/spoiker]

I'm usually moderately anti-gun, but I'm pretty sure this is a situation where "carry a gun for self defense" is the correct solution.

Aliquid

2017-05-31, 12:34 PM

I think geeks don't have to be socially awkward, that's a nerd thing.There are only a couple of differences between geeks and nerds for me... which I won't assign a strong opinion to, in fear of Amazon's post.

1 - Geeks have a passion based on hobbies, nerds have a passion based on academics
2 - Geeks like being social but are socially awkward. Nerds don't really care about being social in the first place, and are socially awkward.

I heard a quote once about college students:
"A geek and a nerd are invited to a party. The nerd stays home to study, the geek shows up and gets a wedgie"

Xyril

2017-05-31, 02:13 PM

A geek doesn't follow social conventions (current fashion, current trends, popular TV shows, rooting the local sports team... etc). Note that this may be because they are oblivious to these things, or because they haughtily eschew such things, or something in-between

To me, this last point conflates one aspect of "geek" with one aspect of "hipster." I generally think of geeks as being more apathetic towards social conventions than deliberately flouting them.

I also don't have such a broad definition of "social conventions" as you do. In fact, your list of "social conventions" don't actually include any of the things I think of when I think of the term, such as etiquette.

Your definition also leads to the conclusion that as certain traditional "geek" interests gain mainstream popularity (for example, MCU media), "true" geeks will have to either stop caring or affect a deliberate distaste, despite the fact that they actually liked Marvel long before mainstream popularity "ruined it."

2D8HP

2017-05-31, 02:51 PM

To me, this last point conflates one aspect of "geek" with one aspect of "hipster."....

"Nerd" was once a slur, as was "geek", now "hipster" seems to be a slur, and I don't understand why, or precisely what is meant by the term:

I learned long ago that many new and hip things suck. I'm not a hipster, I just don't blindly follow a crowd

I confess that I am confused about what a "hipster" is.
Most of the time people just seem to mean a young adult as far as I can tell. When I thought I knew what "hipster" ment, it was an old time word sort of like "beatnik", it ment that you spent alot of time and effort on "art and entertainment" (if I had a dollar for every bad band I saw and band members I knew, well I can't remember for sure but it's alot of dollars!), because we couldn't figure out a way to get a job where we earned enough money to have a house, and support a family, so "art" filled our time. (my bands name was "Abracadaver" btw. No we didn't make a record).:smallfrown:
But now people say "rents are going up because of hipsters moving in".
So what's a hipster now?

According to my dad, at least, anyone with a particular kind of hat and/or beard is a hipster, which automatically makes them extremely shallow and obsessed with their appearance above anything else. :smallannoyed:

Thanks! (Still doesn't explain where they get money to bid up rents if what people say is true, but it helps).
In the old definition of a "hipster" that I knew (which I probably fit after leaving high school in the mid 1980's and probably still was perhaps at even the end of the 20th Century), I would have eagerly stopped being one and become the square I am now if I knew of an opportunity earlier.
*sigh*
Real world politics, or stupidity.
What's it like for young adults now?

It's the Bay Area. Your dad's probably confusing hipsters with yuppies. (To be fair, so are many yuppies.)

:smallsmile:
I think my coworkers may mean "hipster" for yuppie, but for my Dad?
Hipster = Beat
Hippie = young wannabe hipster
Straight = square = bourgeois= non-hipster
and:
"When the revolution comes the landlord is going up against the wall, ya dig?" - My Dad.
"Just humor him" - My mom.
:smallwink:

Oh, right, your post and rooster's blended together in my head at some point. Whoopsie. :smallbiggrin:

Does it matter what they are called? They are just a bunch of people living a hypocritical ideology by saying conformity is bad while making their own lifestyle they conform to.

Unless there is a different definition

On the subject (sorry) there was a mighty funny record album from the early 60's titled "How to speak Hip". It was mostly obsolete (and funny sounding slang).
Sample:
"I am now disguised as an actual hipster"
"Hey man, who's the cat with the microphone in his beard?".....
"Well gotta go work to pay the rent"
"What's he do?"
"He's in the insurance business"
"Hey he just got hit by a car!"
"Yeah man, like I said, the insurance business".

We need an Edgy Inspiration List!

Adding on to what has already been stated, Weapon Brown is a good example of taking a boring idea and ramping up the edge.

The original Yugioh manga is a good example of edge: bullied wimpy teen is possessed by an ancient spirit that inflicts madness upon said bullies.

For music, Linkin Park is good, but if you wanna be all hipster and name a band nobody in the room is gonna know, try Skinny Puppy.

Not at Berkeley High School in 1985! (and Bauhaus, Tones on Tail, Joy Division, Love and Rockets, Dead Can Dance etc.)
Why do I have a sudden craving for a wine cooler and a clove cigarette?

Witchblade comes to mind, though it's right on the line of pornographic content. Such a shame, because the premise is great, if only they would take it seriously.

My understanding has always been that a hipster is a person who avoids things that are "cool" or "mainstream" in the name of nonconformity, and may also claim that ___________ "used to be cool" or that they liked it "before it was cool." Plenty of stereotypes have grown up around the hipster (they drink PBR, they have beards, wear flannel, etc.), and they pretty much took over for emo kids as the stereotypically annoying and hated group of people.

Was Bill Murray's character in Little Shop of Horrors based on you?

Ultimately I think "hipster" has become a very broad category, especially since, unlike most previous subcultures (including the original hipsters) they don't self-define as such. A lot of irritating stereotypes about pretentious people have been rolled into it, along with a few innocents to boot.

I think the archetypal hipster has some combination of the following characteristics:
Possessed of few original ideas and no real artistic ability, but works in a "creative" field anyway and takes pride in this. If they don't work in such a field as their primary occupation expect them to have it as a hobby and talk about it more than they do their actual job. Something like "self-employed artisan cheese maker" is a fairly typical hipster job.
Non-reliance on an actual job for basic financial needs, especially when that job doesn't really pay much or anything. Often supported by family, an inheritance, trust fund, etc. Tend to be fairly middle class.
An obsession with the esoteric. They don't purport to enjoy things despite their unpopularity and lack of exposure, they do so precisely for that reason. As soon as somthing becomes popular or mainstream they'll move on to something else.
A tendency to claim they're doing things "ironically", to the extent it's ultimately hard to tell whether they're ever actually enjoying themselves or expressing themselves authentically. The typical tone of voice used by a hipster is "bored and condescending".
Despite their desire to stay outside the mainstream, like most subcultures nevertheless they tend to dress in a similar way.
Ironically, thanks to their desire to live in areas that aren't "mainstream" - and yet still experience some approximation of the quality of life to which they're accustomed, while having more capital and disposable income than existing denizens - they have a tendency to act as one of the first waves of gentrification, ultimately pricing out the people they're trying to emulate and turning the area more "mainstream". They're like reverse-locusts, filling an area with deli cafés, bakeries and vinyl music shops, before moving on to somewhere as yet untouched.

Many people have some sort of hipsterish tendencies, which is one of the reasons it's come to be so broadly defined - and not all of them, even most of them, are necessarily negative in isolation. And to an extent the hipster market does help to support startup creative endeavours with the one hand even while inadvertently destroying the circumstances which allow their growth with the other. I think the "true" hipster is ultimately a negative phenomenon, though, contributing nothing of worth to anyone or anything while making life more difficult and annoying for everyone around them.

I'm struggling to think of examples in media, for all that I'm sure genuine hipsters must show up a lot these days - and, not watching a lot of US TV, most of my examples are from the UK. Nathan Barley is basically a portrait of hipster London, at least as it was ten years or so ago (it hasn't actually changed that much, in essence), but that in itself is hardly mainstream stuff. The girl from Common People is pretty much a proto-hipster. Jez from Peep Show has many hipsterish traits, although is ultimately too much of a loser, I think, to be a real hipster (his alter ego in the "I'm a Mac/PC" adverts, on the other hand, pretty much ticks the hipster box, if combined with one's impression of Jez, which is hard not to do really). I guess Dan Humphrey from Gossip Girl looks quite a bit like a hipster at times, although in his case he's arguably an aspirational hipster and has a legitimate artistic background, so that's not entirely fair.

The wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipster_%28contemporary_subculture%29) is actually not bad on the subject.

Your right that is a good link.
And I confess that the derision against "hipsters" seems wrong to me.
Pity seems the appropriate response instead. Maybe it's jealousy of the help they get from their families?

I also confess that I was wrong earlier:
The album was from 1959 not "the early 60's" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Speak_Hip),

But it's as funny as I remember! (http://audio.skeyelab.com/howtospeakhip/)

Knaight

2017-05-31, 02:55 PM

They don't have to, but they do. For most geeks, it is part of their personality. It is what MAKES them a geek in the first place. If someone dresses fashionably, and is competent in most social settings.... then I would argue that they are not a geek in the first place. Because lacking those features are other defining features of a geek. A geek doesn't need to have all of these features, but they certainly need most to qualify.

I'd disagree with this definition, but it's also besides the point - someone getting irritable because you enjoy their hobbies while also having social skills needs to get over themselves.

Aliquid

2017-05-31, 03:17 PM

To me, this last point conflates one aspect of "geek" with one aspect of "hipster." I generally think of geeks as being more apathetic towards social conventions than deliberately flouting them. I was considered a geek before the term hipster was being used (at least in its contemporary usage). So I might be antiquated with my views... I suppose those older than me might still consider a geek to be someone that bites the heads off of chickens at a circus side-show.

I also don't have such a broad definition of "social conventions" as you do. In fact, your list of "social conventions" don't actually include any of the things I think of when I think of the term, such as etiquette.Flip that thought process on its head. I used the wrong term, but the list of things is what I meant.... rather than I used the right term, and the list was wrong... if you catch my meaning.

Your definition also leads to the conclusion that as certain traditional "geek" interests gain mainstream popularity (for example, MCU media), "true" geeks will have to either stop caring or affect a deliberate distaste, despite the fact that they actually liked Marvel long before mainstream popularity "ruined it."Yes. Yes that is what I mean with my definition. Which does seem to support your "hipster" comment above. If someone WANTS to stay a geek, and stops liking something when it becomes mainstream, then I guess they are a hipster. But I don't see 'geek' as some sort of moniker that a person should avoid or try to keep. It is simply a descriptor. But again... that might be because I am old and pre-date "geek culture". That is a word that is constantly evolving, so it means different things to different generations.

2D8HP

2017-05-31, 03:32 PM

...If someone WANTS to stay a geek, and stops liking something when it becomes mainstream, then I guess they are a hipster.....

So a "hipster" is not just someone who is "hip" to little known art/entertainment, but is someone who dislikes things only because there common?

I think that used to be called a "snob".

Tangentially related, at Berkeley High School in the mid 1980's, the worst slurs were "poseur", and "trendy".

Amusingly to me, both "preppies", and "new wavers" referred to each other as "the trendies".

Aliquid

2017-05-31, 03:46 PM

So a "hipster" is not just someone who is "hip" to little known art/entertainment, but is someone who dislikes things only because there common?

I think that used to be called a "snob".I don't know what the heck the word hipster currently means. I just get the impression that they take pride in being unique, and stand apart from pop-culture by being "hip" to little known art/entertainment (as you say). But if something they like becomes mainstream, they can't be unique anymore for liking it, and must move onto another underground interest.

Aedilred

2017-05-31, 04:04 PM

Your definition also leads to the conclusion that as certain traditional "geek" interests gain mainstream popularity (for example, MCU media), "true" geeks will have to either stop caring or affect a deliberate distaste, despite the fact that they actually liked Marvel long before mainstream popularity "ruined it."

To be fair, many geeks do exactly that.

Strigon

2017-05-31, 04:10 PM

So a "hipster" is not just someone who is "hip" to little known art/entertainment, but is someone who dislikes things only because there common?

I think that used to be called a "snob".

A hipster is most certainly a snob. Well, a subspecies of snob, really. Except, rather than being a rich, upper-class person who looks down upon people for wearing cheap clothes, listening to music that isn't one of their pre-approved classical composers, or drinking a beverage that's less than 30 years old and/or isn't ludicrously expensive water, they have different things to be snobbish about.
Mostly, they look down on rich, upper-class people. Or so they claim; really, they look down on anything that's popular under the guise that it's representative of rich, upper-class people.

Knaight

2017-05-31, 04:33 PM

So a "hipster" is not just someone who is "hip" to little known art/entertainment, but is someone who dislikes things only because there common?

I think that used to be called a "snob".

The term is flexible (and it mostly exists to facilitate the jokes anyways, e.g. "I was into tributaries before they were mainstream"), but generally it has to do with disliking things because they're popular, where classical snobbery is more about disliking things because they're utilitarian without doubling as a status symbol.

Liquor Box

2017-05-31, 08:11 PM

[QUOTE=Liquor Box;22040940]I think you may have had to have gone back even further:

AFAIK, there's not a whole lot of context surrounding that find. As best we can tell, it's a fertility symbol, yes? But that doesn't necessarily translate to attractiveness, especially when taken to that extreme.

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that that statuette is just an example, and many other similar ones portraying fat women had been found. I had also understood that they had been widely interpreted as suggesting that fat women were found attractive in those times (which is not inconsistent with them also representing fertility - after all fat women are no more fertile than thin ones). Granted, the interpretation might be wrong (as might my understanding that that was the interpretation).

Edit:

Mikemical said: Here's the thing. Fertility idols such as the one you posted are meant to represent pregnant women. Not morbidly obese women. And there is a reason for that. You want me to go fetch the story about the obese woman who had a miscarriage and didn't notice she was pregnant because she was "big boned"? Being fat isn't healthy, and while there are people out there who would find chub attractive, there's also people who find the idea of contracting AIDS/HIV hot.

As above, I don't know enough about it to die in a ditch on the point - but certainly the women appear to me to look obese and not pregnant (perhaps both though).

I'm aware of a few stories of fat women who have not known they were pregnant, but I have no idea how you think that is relevant to whether prehistoric people were attracted to fat women - I'm sure they had not heard the story you are offering to fetch.